# Bulldozer Information Thread.



## AlphaStormX (Aug 27, 2011)

Hi guys. I've been using my trusty i7 2600k and GTX 580 for a year, but Bulldozer is coming, and it looks incredible. 

So I might upgrade to Bulldozer in a couple years, when "Next Generation Bulldozer" is released (source:wikipedia). So I just wanted to know - what do you think about Bulldozer? I upgrade every three years.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 27, 2011)

bulldozer won't be even close to a 2600k, check back for new intel cpus in 2013. ivy bridge is just a 22 nm shrink of sandy bridge, so not worth it if you already have a 2600k


----------



## AlphaStormX (Aug 27, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> bulldozer won't be even close to a 2600k, check back for new intel cpus in 2013. ivy bridge is just a 22 nm shrink of sandy bridge, so not worth it if you already have a 2600k



Do you know what kind of performance increases we'll see from Ivy Bridge?


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 27, 2011)

smaller die size, less heat output, slightly higher clock speed, nothing significant

lga2011 with x79 might be interesting, but it'll only be a minor upgrade for you.


----------



## seronx (Aug 27, 2011)

Most likely out perform Intel options till Skylake

Bulldozer generations ahead of Intel


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Aug 27, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> bulldozer won't be even close to a 2600k



you miss what Wizz said didn`t you ......


----------



## Frick (Aug 27, 2011)

seronx said:


> Most likely out perform Intel options till Skylake
> 
> Bulldozer generations ahead of Intel



Or lord here we go again.


----------



## seronx (Aug 27, 2011)

H82LUZ73 said:


> you miss what Wizz said didn`t you ......



I don't where he got his opinions from but he is far from the facts


----------



## Frick (Aug 27, 2011)

Just wait for reviews ok?


----------



## animal007uk (Aug 27, 2011)

AS far as i remeber none of us still know the true speed of bulldozer, Yes we have seen lots of pics and info but is any of it real concrete evidence? Lets just wait and see.


----------



## seronx (Aug 27, 2011)

AlphaStormX said:


> Hi guys. I've been using my trusty i7 2600k and GTX 580 for a year, but Bulldozer is coming, and it looks incredible.
> 
> So I might upgrade to Bulldozer in a couple years, when "Next Generation Bulldozer" is released (source:wikipedia). So I just wanted to know - what do you think about Bulldozer? I upgrade every three years.




Bulldozer is a interesting architecture which many people are confused on...

Alot of people say it will increase multithreaded performance but that is indeed wrong as when both cores are used in a module the effective clock is halved(Reverse of Netburst, where Netburst had a double effective clock Bulldozer has a half effective clock)

To make up for this performance drop they increased the cores performance to some degree


----------



## Melvis (Aug 27, 2011)

seronx said:


> I don't where he got his opinions from but he is far from the facts



Sarcasm im sure of it lol


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 27, 2011)

Wait for reviews AlphaStormX, supposed to be coming out September 19th 2011 hopefully but you seriously don't need to upgrade man, 2600K + GTX 580 = Epic system anyways


----------



## seronx (Aug 27, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> Wait for reviews AlphaStormX, supposed to be coming out September 19th 2011 hopefully but you seriously don't need to upgrade man, 2600K + GTX 580 = Epic system anyways



Well 2600K depends on the workloads

There are some workloads that are better than others

So, because I forgot to ask this AlphaStormX what are your workloads?
----
The supposed release is actually next week(Paper or Real Launch place your bets!)







But, the supposed press NDA doesn't end till September 6th <-- this number was shot out in July 5th and, it has been almost 2 months


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 27, 2011)

yeah better wait for reviews, i might be completely wrong


----------



## heky (Aug 27, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> bulldozer won't be even close to a 2600k, check back for new intel cpus in 2013. ivy bridge is just a 22 nm shrink of sandy bridge, so not worth it if you already have a 2600k


I think ivy bridge is supposed to have the new 3d transistors? Correct me if i am wrong.


----------



## repman244 (Aug 27, 2011)

heky said:


> I think ivy bridge is supposed to have the new 3d transistors? Correct me if i am wrong.



Correct.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 27, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> yeah better wait for reviews, i might be completely wrong


Doubt it.  If AMD had a rabbit in a hat, they'd have pulled it out by now.  All the moves AMD is making (without the MCM rabble) are identical to the disappointing Phenom release.  They're going for price competitiveness over performance competitiveness.


----------



## seronx (Aug 27, 2011)

heky said:


> I think ivy bridge is supposed to have the new 3d transistors? Correct me if i am wrong.








 <-- this is Intel's FD-SOI

It's unknown if AMD will ever use their 22nm FD-SOI 

http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3080111/AMD+Joins+TripleGate+Race.htm

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/07/12/global-foundries-tri-gate-competitor/1

but AMD tends to have a track record when jumping to "New" architectures they have an equivalent Fab node process to the "tick" of Intel cycle

Core 2 65nm -> Agena 65nm -> Nehalem 45nm -> Deneb 45nm -> Sandy Bridge 32nm -> Orochi 32nm -> Haswell 22nm -> Next-Gen Bulldozer CPU Die on 22nm?


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 27, 2011)

heky said:


> I think ivy bridge is supposed to have the new 3d transistors? Correct me if i am wrong.



yes, but (simplified) all it does is let you run higher clock speed at same voltage and power.
so you can either reduce power & heat or increase clocks at same power or a mix of both.

they also occupy less die area which can help with cost savings


----------



## heky (Aug 27, 2011)

So ideally, Intel could pack even more tranzistors in the same die area, not just becouse of the 22nm fab process, but also becouse of the 3d transistors?


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 27, 2011)

3d transistors are kind of a way to get to 22 nm for intel.

remember back when we couldnt scale up mhz anymore? but we still wanted faster processors, so the engineers invented multi-core processors. to me it seems like this 3d transistor thing is similar


----------



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2011)

seronx said:


> I don't where he got his opinions from but he is far from the facts



I don't know where you got your facts from, but it's far from plausible.


----------



## seronx (Aug 27, 2011)

heky said:


> So ideally, Intel could pack even more transistors in the same die area, not just because of the 22nm fab process, but also because of the 3d transistors?



Tri-gate FD-SOI designs don't technically increase the transistor count but increase the effectiveness of the transistors

The problems with these designs are

-Power
-Heat
-Cost

Power Consumption can rise dramatically(If voltages stay the same)

Heat can rise dramatically(<-- unsure about this one, I might have gotten in backwards(It might lower))

Cost can rise dramatically(More steps in the fabrication process, requires a delicate touch)

For example a mature 45nm fab process and a mature cpu architecture that is 349mm^2 might only cost a certain CPU company $50-100 per yield
Moving to a new CPU Architecture and a new 32nm fab process with a smaller die size 315~mm^2 might cost between $105-160 per yield
Then moving that architecture with a couple difference to 22nm with a slightly small die size 265~mm^2 might cost $180-$250 per yield



btarunr said:


> I don't know where you got your facts from, but it's far from plausible.



How so, Sir Btarunr?


----------



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2011)

seronx said:


> How so, Sir Btarunr?



This:


> Most likely out perform Intel options till Skylake
> 
> Bulldozer generations ahead of Intel



...is far from 'fact', and lightyears away from plausible.


----------



## seronx (Aug 27, 2011)

btarunr said:


> This:
> 
> 
> ...is far from 'fact', and lightyears away from plausible.



Well, it's the only mysterious Intel architecture

2011 <--> 2013 "Haswell"

AVX, XOP, FMA4 <----> AVX, AVX2, FMA3

I can only guess in 2013 Next Generation Bulldozer

2013 <--> 2015 "Skylake"

AVX, AVX2, XOP, FMA4, FMA3 <--> AVX, AVX2, AVX3?, FMA3 and maybe FMA4

Only if FMA3 is better

Bulldozer tends to be a tinny bit ahead, with XOP and AVX with FMA4(which allows 2x the performance(XOP and AVX2 allows FMA3 and FMA4 on "IMACs")

Maybe I should have pointed out I am talking about ISAs again(My workloads are heavily dependent on ISAs)


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 27, 2011)

Well, we will now soon according to this:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/08/26/amd-bulldozer-to-ship-within-the-next-week/1


----------



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2011)

seronx said:


> Well, it's the only mysterious Intel architecture
> 
> 2011 <--> 2013 "Haswell"
> 
> ...


Your point? It's one thing to have an instruction set, quite another to judge performance based on what the instruction set of a CPU looks like.

Only a tiny fraction of software use IA-SSE4. That isn't what's responsible for Penryn, Nehalem, Westmere, and Sandy Bridge being faster than K10.


----------



## bucketface (Aug 27, 2011)

why don't we all just cool off for the moment, come back when there are some reviews after the almost certain paper launch b4 September/ Sept 9? (according to seronx) and the likely hard launch on Sept 19th. the only people who are going to know anything b4 then are reviewers and that will only be a couple days b4 launch.
I just want AMD back in the race... if somehow bulldozer can give sandybridge a run for it's money i'll be happy.


----------



## repman244 (Aug 27, 2011)

What btarunr is trying to say is that if you base the performance on some charts, diagrams and slides you can have the best CPU out there.
But the actual product is another thing.

If I would only look at the slides for Phenom I could say It would destroy everything, but we know what happened with the actual product.
Same could be said for P4, it looks good on paper but in reality it's only a room heater.

You can't say anything just by going with stuff on paper.


----------



## happita (Aug 27, 2011)

Oh boy. Everytime I see a Bulldozer thread it's like I keep having deja vu..

We should know more about Bulldozer when they paper launch. Until it's properly launched, tested, and reviewed, keep all your "opinions" to yourselves. Because they are ALL opinions until we hear an official statement from AMD, nothing more. So we can all speculate till our pretty little heads explode, but I for 1 will believe performance numbers when the fat lady sings.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 27, 2011)

roll on some actual FActs , histeria and bull abound


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Aug 27, 2011)

AlphaStormX said:


> I upgrade every three years



So wait 2 years then upgrade


----------



## seronx (Aug 27, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> roll on some actual FActs , histeria and bull abound



Bulldozer retires max 4 macro ops + 1 if branch fusion(I have no idea....)

So, 4 in most max cases, 5 in rare max cases

The "BD" Core Scheduler receives/dispatches/and retires? 320bits 5(x86-64) "64bit" Cops/5(x86)-10(x86-64) "32bit" Sops <--- Maxes

The only issue with this the core 2 ALU+2 AGLU, compared to Intel Sandy Bridge it is missing only an "Add" ALU(Sandy Bridge has 3 ALU + 2 AGU + 1 Store/Load(The equivalent to the LCS in Bulldozer)







But based on this it is irrelevant

There are other things that supposedly improve performance but the main point is "Bulldozer" can feed the cores and all components are most likely going to get stressed

So, on the core side

AMD has 2 64bit ALU+2 64bit AGUs+1 Store/Load and now you have to include the floating coprocessor unit which schedules from one core but can execute two cores


AMD "Bulldozer" FX
(2 64bit INT ALUs + 2 64bit AGUs) x 2
+
(2 128bit FP ALUs + 2 128bit INT ALUs)
+
(128bit Store/256bit Load Cache Units) x 3 (1 in each of the cores 1 in the floating point unit)

vs

Intel "Sandy Bridge" i7
(3 256bit FP+INT ALUs + 2 64bit AGUs + 1 Store/Load)


----------



## LordJummy (Aug 27, 2011)

AlphaStormX said:


> Hi guys. I've been using my trusty i7 2600k and GTX 580 for a year, but Bulldozer is coming, and it looks incredible.
> 
> So I might upgrade to Bulldozer in a couple years, when "Next Generation Bulldozer" is released (source:wikipedia). So I just wanted to know - what do you think about Bulldozer? I upgrade every three years.



How have you had the 2600k for a year?


----------



## animal007uk (Aug 27, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> How have you had the 2600k for a year?



I think that was ment to say almost a year.


----------



## Frick (Aug 27, 2011)

animal007uk said:


> I think that was ment to say almost a year.



That's not true either. Closer to six months than a full year. ^^


----------



## animal007uk (Aug 27, 2011)

True i worked it out wrong, Brain ain't working to good today lol.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 27, 2011)

All i know is BD will be the only plausible long term upgrade route for this hardware junkie. I stopped benching and don't care for numbers anymore. Found an upgrade path that suites me and that is am3+. I still got Thuban and Zambezi i can upgrade to from my unlocked dual. I'm happy.  and please don't flame war each other. I want to learn something with some current info that IS available.


----------



## qubit (Aug 27, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> yeah better wait for reviews, i might be completely wrong



And you be sure to review it, ya hear?! Yours are the only ones I trust.


----------



## seronx (Aug 27, 2011)

qubit said:


> And you be sure to review it, ya hear?! Yours are the only ones I trust.



Omega does the CPU benchmarks

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/member.php?u=75434

and I wouldn't really trust Techpowerup reviews either(they are usually highly biased), I am here for the community


----------



## qubit (Aug 27, 2011)

seronx said:


> Omega does the CPU benchmarks
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/member.php?u=75434



Ok, thanks for that, I didn't know. However, it's still in house with TPU, so I'd trust Omega's reviews just the same.


----------



## INSTG8R (Aug 27, 2011)

Bulldozer:


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 27, 2011)

Core vs core intel are still going to be on top, but AMD is going down the road of packing as many cores in as possible.

AMD have chosen to have most of the performance of a extra core without building an extra core ( meaning more space available or cost savings)

So just bare that in mind folks.

If they do manage to keep up core for core then AMD are magic.


----------



## seronx (Aug 27, 2011)

INSTG8R said:


> Bulldozer:



Fixed


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 27, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Core vs core intel are still going to be on top, but AMD is going down the road of packing as many cores in as possible.
> 
> AMD have chosen to have most of the performance of a extra core without building an extra core ( meaning more space available or cost savings)
> 
> ...



Not being fanboy-ish, why are you bringing intel into this conversation? I thought this was supposed to be Bulldozer info thread?  I'm waiting for more info if available!


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 27, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Not being fanboy-ish, why are you bringing intel into this conversation? I thought this was supposed to be Bulldozer info thread?  I'm waiting for more info if available!






Well seeing as theres only really two choices for my CPU the companies kinda go hand in hand


----------



## HalfAHertz (Aug 27, 2011)

I just hope Bulldozer is at least as competitive as the i5's otherwise AMD is headed the way of the dinosaurs and fast...


----------



## INSTG8R (Aug 27, 2011)

seronx said:


> Fixed



LOL but wasn't that the same thing?


----------



## Jegergrim (Aug 28, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> I just hope Bulldozer is at least as competitive as the i5's otherwise AMD is headed the way of the dinosaurs and fast...



That made my day

I believe AMD is as aware of this fact as everyone else, so I highly doubt it will disappoint


----------



## qubit (Aug 28, 2011)

Jegergrim said:


> That made my day
> 
> I believe AMD is as aware of this fact as everyone else, so I highly doubt it will disappoint



AMD won't go down the pan if performance isn't as good as Intel: they'll simply reduce the price of their processors and carry on, like they've been doing for years.

A dead AMD would be very bad indeed for customers, because Intel would then have a monopoly.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> AMD won't go down the pan if performance isn't as good as Intel: they'll simply reduce the price of their processors and carry on, like they've been doing for years.
> 
> A dead AMD would be very bad indeed for customers, because Intel would then have a monopoly.



N that would be the day I stop using computers completely


----------



## techtard (Aug 28, 2011)

Well, the magical reveal time is almost upon us. Might as well wait it out instead of wasting time bickering over some faked slides and benches.


----------



## AlphaStormX (Aug 28, 2011)

I know my friend is going to start using Bulldozer - he hasn't shut up about it since March.


----------



## qubit (Aug 28, 2011)

AlphaStormX said:


> I know my friend is going to start using Bulldozer - he hasn't shut up about it since March.



Must be driving you mad, lol.


----------



## mR Yellow (Aug 28, 2011)

bucketface said:


> why don't we all just cool off for the moment, come back when there are some reviews after the almost certain paper launch b4 September/ Sept 9? (according to seronx) and the likely hard launch on Sept 19th. the only people who are going to know anything b4 then are reviewers and that will only be a couple days b4 launch.
> I just want AMD back in the race... if somehow bulldozer can give sandybridge a run for it's money i'll be happy.



Same here. I hope AMD surprise us.


----------



## AlphaStormX (Aug 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> Must be driving you mad, lol.



Yeah, I'm building a system for him, because he doesn't know how to. And yes, it can drive me mad...lol


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 28, 2011)

AlphaStormX said:


> I know my friend is going to start using Bulldozer - he hasn't shut up about it since March.



me neither lmao


----------



## qubit (Aug 28, 2011)

I would like an octacore CPU, but I have no idea what I'd use all those cores for.

I guess I'd just open Task Manager and dreamily stare at all those eight threads. <love>


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 28, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> bulldozer won't be even close to a 2600k, check back for new intel cpus in 2013. ivy bridge is just a 22 nm shrink of sandy bridge, so not worth it if you already have a 2600k


Why do you say that? You getting a kick back from Intel from trying to sway the peeps that frequent your site 
Nobody can give Amd a break even with new technology. It kinda pisses me off that ppl assume *didnt your dad say never assume* that the BD is going to be slow and useless compared to Intel. Im thinking this time around I'll go with what I get the best bang for the least amount of money....  

How is it that ppl can say BD is going to be a flop? Am I the only one that doesn't have a ES chip to know for sure its slow? Am I the only one that's not an Engineer that designed chips? :shadedshu.. And with these final word's I hope BD exceeds everybody's expectations so all the BS stops. 

Have a great day


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 28, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> smaller die size, less heat output, slightly higher clock speed, nothing significant
> 
> lga2011 with x79 might be interesting, but it'll only be a minor upgrade for you.



Man I hope your wrong. I really, REALLY hope your wrong.

One positive thing I have seen lately is DICE is using Bulldozer CPU's to demo BF3. So unless you have an inside line on something (which wouldn't surprise me) Ill wait for your review........

Speaking of which will you be reviewing Bulldozer or one of your minions?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Aug 28, 2011)

INSTG8R said:


> Bulldozer:
> 
> http://derekarmour.webs.com/photos/My-Awesome-Phoros/icct.jpg



Living up 2 your name


----------



## seronx (Aug 29, 2011)

qubit said:


> I would like an octacore CPU, but I have no idea what I'd use all those cores for.
> 
> I guess I'd just open Task Manager and dreamily stare at all those eight threads. <love>



Well, You might not use 8 cores but Windows will use all 8 cores

Unless you have thread affinity on...Any program can attach itself to any thread/core

So, if you have 4 programs that can use two cores each, you can either set them up to use a specific thread or let windows do its thing


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 29, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> Why do you say that? You getting a kick back from Intel from trying to sway the peeps that frequent your site
> Nobody can give Amd a break even with new technology. It kinda pisses me off that ppl assume *didnt your dad say never assume* that the BD is going to be slow and useless compared to Intel. Im thinking this time around I'll go with what I get the best bang for the least amount of money....
> 
> How is it that ppl can say BD is going to be a flop? Am I the only one that doesn't have a ES chip to know for sure its slow? Am I the only one that's not an Engineer that designed chips? :shadedshu.. And with these final word's I hope BD exceeds everybody's expectations so all the BS stops.
> ...



Who said it would be a flop? We all know from experience that people will continue to buy either brand regardless of how much the chips suck. P4, everything phenom...


----------



## qubit (Aug 29, 2011)

seronx said:


> Well, You might not use 8 cores but Windows will use all 8 cores
> 
> Unless you have thread affinity on...Any program can attach itself to any thread/core
> 
> So, if you have 4 programs that can use two cores each, you can either set them up to use a specific thread or let windows do its thing



Uber multitasking? Yeah, I guess so. 

I remember when I got my first dual core Athlon 64 CPU. I ran two instances of Unreal Tournament in separate desktop windows perfectly smoothly, just to show it off. Turned off one of the cores and it all went to pot, with much jerking and slowdown. It was a great geeky demo, which greatly impressed my friends at the time.  These cool people are no longer friends with me.

I was also running Vista then.


----------



## seronx (Aug 29, 2011)

qubit said:


> Uber multitasking? Yeah, I guess so.
> 
> I remember when I got my first dual core Athlon 64 CPU. I ran two instances of Unreal Tournament in separate desktop windows perfectly smoothly, just to show it off. Turned off one of the cores and it all went to pot, with much jerking and slowdown. It was a great geeky demo, which greatly impressed my friends at the time.  These cool people are no longer friends with me.
> 
> I was also running Vista then.



Well actually, you can run 4 threads on 1 "Bulldozer" core but AMD and other people don't recommend it something that affects coherency

But, that was my point

I run 3 programs...(I don't have a hexa-core)

I am pretty sure 2 of those programs use all available cores and the 1 program is a game which might and might not use 4 cores, but getting an octo-core or hexa-core I am able to increase the first 2 programs outcome performance that I run with such game


----------



## qubit (Aug 29, 2011)

seronx said:


> Well actually, you can run 4 threads on 1 "Bulldozer" core but AMD and other people don't recommend it something that affects coherency



Then it must use some form of hyperthreading? I know that's an Intel term, but you know what I mean.


----------



## seronx (Aug 29, 2011)

qubit said:


> Then it must use some form of hyperthreading? I know that's an Intel term, but you know what I mean.



It's not Hyperthreading and the OS and Programs don't see it

Windows games will only see 1 thread and Windows applications will only see 1 thread and Windows will only see 1 thread

If you program carefully in Linux or some other open source OS you can probably make programs that can exploit 4 threads on 1 core but on Windows you won't ever see it


----------



## qubit (Aug 29, 2011)

seronx said:


> It's not Hyperthreading and the OS and Programs don't see it
> 
> Windows games will only see 1 thread and Windows applications will only see 1 thread and Windows will only see 1 thread
> 
> If you program carefully in Linux or some other open source OS you can probably make programs that can exploit 4 threads on 1 core but on Windows you won't ever see it



I'm really confused now. A core can run any number of threads. They are simply time-sliced together by the OS as part of it's normal multitasking and interrupt functions, so at any one time, there can be hundreds of active threads.


----------



## seronx (Aug 29, 2011)

qubit said:


> I'm really confused now. A core can run any number of threads. They are simply time-sliced together by the OS as part of it's normal multitasking and interrupt functions, so at any one time, there can be hundreds of active threads.



I'm going to stop talking about "Bulldozers" ability to Dispatch 4 threads to a core/Process 4 threads in a core/Retire 4 threads in a core/per cycle(non-timespliced)

In most cases this has to be programmed for it to do it over long periods of time

It also comes with a hefty performance drop

There is only 2 64bit EX(ALU) pipelines and 2 64bit AGen(AGLU) pipelines, AMD said it's a 6x performance drop over 1 thread(<-- what AMD has said)

Windows will only see 1 thread and most programs will use only 1 thread...


----------



## erocker (Aug 29, 2011)

Release is "Next week or so"?

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/08/26/amd-bulldozer-to-ship-within-the-next-week/1


----------



## happita (Aug 29, 2011)

erocker said:


> Release is "Next week or so"?
> 
> http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/08/26/amd-bulldozer-to-ship-within-the-next-week/1






> Zambezi will use Globalfoundries’ 32nm SoI (silicon on Insulator) manufacturing process, which is no surprise, and each die is said to measure a hefty 315mm2. *Server and workstation versions of Bulldozer CPUs should ship in September.*



So that means that consumer level CPUs should hit later than September? Hmmm, I'm confused. If they wait any longer it'll be Christmas!!


----------



## BrooksyX (Aug 29, 2011)

I just purchased an i5 2500k and I love the thing. But that being said I am really hoping that bulldozer will destroy my sandy bridge in performance. I definitely prefer AMD and would love to switch back to them down the road!


----------



## billcat479 (Aug 29, 2011)

*No useful data out but I'm going with them for many reasons.*

A bit on the real long side but oh well, it's fun but I'm also very tired of what logic people go by when buying computers or how they can cut their own throats in the process by illusions....
         and now...... Facts.... Or what facts....

 And so far the real answer to this is "what facts!!"
 I am going to go far afield with this topic be warned. I always do this, I can't take narrow minded view on this topic.

  There isn't enough real information out on this cpu to go by and all we can do is hope AMD has a winner. Even if they are halfway between Intel's top of the line and AMD's current cpu they may be called a winner but what counts in the long run for every computer owner/user is how well AMD can sell them. And if they get software support to make the most of their new design it may also have more performance to come.
  I equate people that take a wait and see for the next build or two to the nice workers at British Leyland Automotive. They thought if they went on strike enough they would end up making more money but instead they lost their jobs and closed the factory. Sideline watchers are problematic at best.

   Intel junkies take note of this because I really doubt many remember how much Intel cpus cost (their 286 line) long ago before AMD and Cyrix came onto the market. Their current cpus are cheap compared to those. And you needed a FPU chip if you wanted to do autocad.  What a nightmare those days were. My old Atari ST was better and had a better OS than windows 3.1 but who cares.
  If AMD can't get sales into the high end and get a lot of user support they might not last long enough to come out with any next generation cpu. Or they might but it will be a very hard thing to do and take longer like this one did..
   This is a worst case issue but I've spent enough time working at Intel long ago to know how important these sales are to AMD and just as important or more so is their R&D department costs. This is where they really need to thrive to live.
    I hope people can see past the less than reliable hardware hype that dare I say makes gullible buyers go one direction or the other even if it doesn't really matter when they get the system working at home and expect wonders. It's not like that in the real world at least for home use.
  Current AMD cpu's for home systems perform more than good enough to run most any software at them just fine and buying because you get a few extra FPS is not all that smart.
  This really only applies to professional users of Audio and Video and other area's where time is money and Intel is the logical way to go. Home users it's a lot of clap trap propaganda at it's worst. What ever.
  If AMD can't support their R&D budget and keep innovation going everyone will suffer. And at the current die size any new shrink is more expensive than most can even imagine, it's very expensive. They are slamming into the atomic barriers and have to go with radical designs past just adding more cores to the die.

   They are doing a lot better at the low end market sales but this is also low profit area. They need high end sales. 
  With AMD and ATI merged it's even more important. In the off chance they can't make good sales and get bought up and taken apart with a wrecking ball you can look forward to paying as much for a Intel cpu as your paying now for a complete system and what happenes to ATI is also a worry if Nvidia is pretty much the only one left I will see my days of new computers at a end.
  If AMD does well and they continue to work on merging the CPU and GPU they could come out with the top of the line FPU/APU/CPU chip that just maybe for science mainframes and other math related systems and make some serious money. But that market is seeing quantum computers starting to emerge now, not on a large scale but they got them working and it's only a matter of time for this market  It's all kind of fuzzy in this market in the next few or 10 years or so.
   That is only conjecture though but I'm sure they are looking into a complete merge or giving it a serious thought or more, hard to say but one can hope....
  They have done well in the APU market and at least it's giving them some room but not enough for the long run.
  I'll stick with AMD, I've yet to have any problems running any games or apps. The video card makes more impact and even going with a SSD changes the picture more than the cpu does.
  Intel and AMD,  They are fairly close in many area's and for home use it's not that big a deal. Keeping AMD alive is a big deal.
  I tend to take the long term views and am not in the look at me crowd. I can get by with a cheaper and just as useful system and don't worry about keeping up with the Jones's next door illusion.
  The only fun I'll get is if AMD gets axed will get to read the outrage posts about the cost of Intel cpu's.  A told you so would be pointless at that time. But at least it will be good for a little dark humor just the same.

  It all comes down to what are you going to do with your computer and what impact it would make going one way or the other. A money making related issue is different but just a home system for games and watching multimedia. Then either cpu will do the job and I'd rather save money on the cpu and put in into real performance area's like video cards and more memory and a better SSD or two. And also doing my small part trying to keep the future computers affordable and will try AMD's new cpu. Got a motherboard waiting for it with a 6 core. It's speed right now is impressive so I'll wait a few months to iron out which one I want to get.. 

 If buying just to impress people is the goal here is a tip,  go with AMD and save the extra money for a nice couch to talk to the mind molders. It's that crazy.

  This is why, the Theory of Relativity can be applied to many issues and products. If Intel had a slower cpu than AMD's current ones everyone would be creaming their jeans after buying one of AMD's finest and going ape over how fast it is. But now a slightly faster Intel one is out and now they say how slow AMD cpus are.
 Everything is relative.  This would make good old Albert roll over in his grave... haha.... This is the parts that I get such a kick over.
  Posting this on a hardware site is not going to sit well I'm sure ts are done on top line systems that give no real user data for upgrades as few have systems like that or they wouldn't be updated in the first place so the numbers are for the most users meaningless.  
  But I hope I gave at least some people that can think at longer wavelengths something to think about. It's all an illusion.


----------



## seronx (Aug 29, 2011)

erocker said:


> Release is "Next week or so"?
> 
> http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/08/26/amd-bulldozer-to-ship-within-the-next-week/1



http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=130733&postcount=387

Charlie says something



BrooksyX said:


> I just purchased an i5 2500k and I love the thing. But that being said I am really hoping that bulldozer will destroy my sandy bridge in performance. I definitely prefer AMD and would love to switch back to them down the road!



The i5 2500K has no clear competition with AMDs lineup as their will be no pure "Quad-Core" setup(A CMP setup)

The only thing in it's range is the Llano's A8-A6 that are quad-cores in a CMP sense

Bobcat is going to be a dual core CMP only
Bulldozer is going to be a module CMT only

i5 2500K = Good purchase


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 29, 2011)

billcat479 said:


> But I hope I gave at least some people that can think at longer wavelengths something to think about. It's all an illusion.


 
Good say Billcat. Thank you


----------



## billcat479 (Aug 31, 2011)

*Why thank you and I'm glad you didn't take any of it personally.*



fullinfusion said:


> Good say Billcat. Thank you



 I was trying to see if anyone would get mad at me, I went pretty deep but I am just so tired of it all. We almost have are own supercomputers from intel and amd and with good programming and less bloat we would have some fantastic speed and which one doesn't matter that much. It's gotten to be like politics and everyone knows how bad that is. It really is an perception of illusions.
  In a way I'll never be happy I got rid of my very old Atari 512 ST. 
Those were game computers but they were computers and they worked super well. Had the GEM OS on a ROM chip where nothing got in the way of a good operating system and it did what a OS is supposed to do, make the darn thing work and run software. 
  I think it's blazing fast 4 or was it 6Mhz 8bit motorola cpu and 512k memory stood out as a lot of stuff that did not much except play games and program in basic. Both were fun. A lot of Asseb. coding went on with them too. Used to run time dilatation progs on them and very slow mandelbrot stuff. But I am still in love with astroids and packman and space raiders. That was a neat kind of simple game but fun is one thing those games were and could be played for hours on end sitting times. I wish I could find a setup with all the game cartdriges. and the huge 32k programs that I had on many disks. A 64k program was a real huge one for those days and computers.... What a world.... 
 But hey, thanks bud, I 'm glad you got a good sence of humor and maybe got what I was going round in circles about... I didn't really have much more than a illusion spread out to read. But it did have a dark side that has a glimmer of truth in it.
 And it looks like you got it.... Cool man... Have a good one...


----------



## Goodman (Aug 31, 2011)

AMD Bulldozer sample vs Intel Core i7-990x in SLI test









> This test has been carried on with B1 stepping of AMD Bulldozer and now B2 stepping has come. We have also reviewed the performance of B2 stepping of AMD Bulldozer which gives a better performance than B1 stepping AMD Bulldozer.



Link--> http://lenzfire.com/2011/07/bulldozer-sample-vs-core-i7-990x-in-sli-test/

If the article is legit , i wouldn't expect much more out of B2 revision when it be out in about 3-6 weeks from now...?


----------



## erocker (Aug 31, 2011)

Goodman said:


> AMD Bulldozer sample vs Intel Core i7-990x in SLI test
> 
> http://lenzfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1.png
> 
> ...



Unless they disabled things which has been brought up many times before. Then again, who knows? Nobody that would actually release any information.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 31, 2011)

Those informations are old and they come from the infamous OBR. On his blog he has lots of more "Bulldozer" benchmarks. Nobody seem to take them seriously.


----------



## repman244 (Aug 31, 2011)

Then again it's from OBR who spreads nothing but lies.


----------



## Goodman (Aug 31, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Those informations are old and they come from the infamous OBR. On his blog he has lots of more "Bulldozer" benchmarks. Nobody seem to take them seriously.





repman244 said:


> Then again it's from OBR who spreads nothing but lies.



Yeah! maybe so , idk but man the wait is just


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 31, 2011)

Some bad news apparently for people waiting:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...Bulldozer_Chips_Might_Face_Further_Delay.html


----------



## bucketface (Aug 31, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Some bad news apparently for people waiting:



and fudzilla say's their right on track for Sept 19th 
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/23908-bulldozer-comes-on-september-19th

personally i take articles like those form x-bit and fud with at least a pinch or salt.

I'd say it's highly likely there will be "limited" availability on the 19th with reviews and then more later eg. November...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 31, 2011)

Don't care about the wait.

1. Nothing I run now that my 1090T doesn't devour.
2. Don't need a Bulldozer to run ports.
3. Couldn't afford one right now anyway.


----------



## DannibusX (Aug 31, 2011)

Speculation is nothing.  Arguing whether a processor that hasn't been released nor reviewed will outperform rivals product is all Special Olympics type BS IMO.

I think Bulldozer will succeed regardless of whether it out performs Intels current line up.  Everyone knows that AMD's chips have been much less expensive than Intel's in modern times.  You have many different types of consumers out there.  Some people need to have the very best, which roughly translates to "most expensive" pretty often.  Others want what works and is more affordable.  Both companies have dedicated communities that wouldn't dare buy anything from the rival.

I like Intel and I like AMD.  I currently have two Intel machines and two AMD machines (3 have AMD video cards).  I like them all.  They all work well and I can play games on them all with great performance.  I'm not a benchmarking guy or even much of an overclocker.  80% of the time I'm playing WoW, SC2 or some Source based FPS (I admit to CoD as well).

I anxious for Bulldozer to launch because I'm wanting to see if AMD is going to bring the heat.  I'd hate to think that reviving the FX line name is just a marketing ploy to keep people from buying Intel, but the longer they wait the more I fear it is exactly that.  To me, it's an exciting time for computers.  Technology is moving forward at an unrelenting pace, the internet took over the world and how people interact with each other change seemingly on a daily basis.

Intel has their thing going on and AMD has their thing going on.  I'm stoked to see what's coming down the line, but I won't read anything about alleged performance (or the lack thereof) until the product is on the street and legitimate reviews are posted on the internets.

Then I'll let Erocker build a PC with it, figure out an awesome overclock and buy his hardware when he upgrades again and be golden!


----------



## Altered (Aug 31, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Some bad news apparently for people waiting:
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...Bulldozer_Chips_Might_Face_Further_Delay.html



 Aww damn


----------



## Steevo (Aug 31, 2011)

Billy, the reason we need more CPU performance is the increase in video definition, increase in 3D render quality, increase in pixels rendered, increase in special effects and interactiveness. 


That being said a radical change in the way programs are handled and the kernel of the OS handling things would increase performance on current hardware exponentially. Use OpenCL and dump stream and Cuda, and use it across multiple platforms, across multiple hardware, and support it at the hardware layer directly with the kernel. 


Amazing things could happen.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 31, 2011)

Steevo said:


> Billy, the reason we need more CPU performance is the increase in video definition, increase in 3D render quality, increase in pixels rendered, increase in special effects and interactiveness.
> 
> 
> That being said a radical change in the way programs are handled and the kernel of the OS handling things would increase performance on current hardware exponentially. Use OpenCL and dump stream and Cuda, and use it across multiple platforms, across multiple hardware, and support it at the hardware layer directly with the kernel.
> ...



See the problem is not the support of Cuda or Stream in modern rendering software but the fact they don't utilize the turbo nabulator in most GPU's built in flux capacitors.


----------



## seronx (Aug 31, 2011)

http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=3901

http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=3880

4 FX-8000s

No change in L3 that will be nice for games


----------



## ensabrenoir (Aug 31, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> See the problem is not the support of Cuda or Stream in modern rendering software but the fact they don't utilize the turbo nabulator in most GPU's built in flux capacitors.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 1, 2011)

DannibusX said:


> I think Bulldozer will succeed regardless of whether it out performs Intels current line up.  Everyone knows that AMD's chips have been much less expensive than Intel's in modern times.



I mostly agree with your response, but this line was something I felt needed to be poked at.  The pricing scheme for BD CPU's (that we've seen so far at least) puts the highest one in the exact same price point for the 2600k.  That means if it doesn't perform as well as the 2600k, AMD doesn't even have that benefit anymore.  Something tells me when it comes to BD, AMD won't be able to just keep dropping the price like they have to keep K10 on the market.  They need to be at least on par for SB CPU's at the same price point.


----------



## DannibusX (Sep 1, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I mostly agree with your response, but this line was something I felt needed to be poked at.  The pricing scheme for BD CPU's (that we've seen so far at least) puts the highest one in the exact same price point for the 2600k.  That means if it doesn't perform as well as the 2600k, AMD doesn't even have that benefit anymore.  Something tells me when it comes to BD, AMD won't be able to just keep dropping the price like they have to keep K10 on the market.  They need to be at least on par for SB CPU's at the same price point.



Hmm.  I haven't been following the pricing.  If that's true then they should be releasing a contender, otherwise they'll pull an Apple and drop the price 2 months after release.

I actually haven't been following much when it comes to BD, I'm definitely interested but I don't like too much speculation.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 1, 2011)

I am a Amd Guy and I am buying A 2500k do you know why ?
because the 2500k kicks the Phenom II 's into the dirt


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 1, 2011)

At this point I don't care if it cost $4, able to oyerclock to 8ghz and can spin straw into gold(with a 7xxx gpu) Just want something solid from AMD besides names to settle this once and for all. Bugatti Veyron or toyota Venza. Amd let it be Known.


----------



## Melvis (Sep 1, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> I am a Amd Guy and I am buying A 2500k do you know why ?
> because the 2500k kicks the Phenom II 's into the dirt



I would hope so since the Phenom II is over 2yrs old.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 1, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> I am a Amd Guy and I am buying A 2500k do you know why ?
> because the 2500k kicks the Phenom II 's into the dirt



good for you i guess you came in here to try to start something


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 1, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> good for you i guess you came in here to try to start something



No One Moar is just that smart. We should all listen to him. How could we have been so stupid!


----------



## LordJummy (Sep 1, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> good for you i guess you came in here to try to start something



That's basically what he does. Sniffs out AMD threads and does that.

I think the fact that phenom II is over 2 years old is irrelevant. AMD has no other offering at the moment so that's just the way it is. If AMD had BD out now, then this conversation wouldn't be taking place. The whole thread is filled with crazy nonsense. Let's all hope bulldozer is fantastic, because if it is we ALL win!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 1, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No One Moar is just that smart. We should all listen to him. How could we have been so stupid!





LordJummy said:


> That's basically what he does. Sniffs out AMD threads and does that.
> 
> I think the fact that phenom II is over 2 years old is irrelevant. AMD has no other offering at the moment so that's just the way it is. If AMD had BD out now, then this conversation wouldn't be taking place. The whole thread is filled with crazy nonsense. Let's all hope bulldozer is fantastic, because if it is we ALL win!



Tell you the truth the machine i just built my bro im pretty impressed with, its not the top end parts but it is a Dual Unlocked to a quad (BE 555 now B55/955) with a 6770 with 8 gigs ram at 8-8-8-24 timing n 1.5V. All i gotta do is some major cable management though

N He is one Less person I will help when he is needing help cause he dont know how to be mature.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 1, 2011)

BD Opteron (wrong specs - copy paste from MC Opteron)

http://www.smsassembly.com/AMD-Opteron-6276-OS6276WKTGGGU-2.3GHz/



> AMD Opteron 6276 OS6276WKTGGGU 2.3GHz 16-Core Server CPU
> 
> 
> Be the first to own AMD's next generation 16-Core 6200 Series processors.
> In stock, can ship today.


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 2, 2011)

is it out yet? Bulldozer


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 2, 2011)

All benchmarks that show up before launch will not be representative of actual performance.

Period.

And, I don't believe the Gigabyte data is completely accurate.


----------



## qubit (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> All benchmarks that show up before launch will not be representative of actual performance.
> 
> Period.
> 
> And, I don't believe the Gigabyte data is completely accurate.



Thanks - I knew all that speculation was BS. 

So when exactly, will Bulldozer be out?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> All benchmarks that show up before launch will not be representative of actual performance.
> 
> Period.
> 
> And, I don't believe the Gigabyte data is completely accurate.



It's just sad that no matter how many forums you visit, and how many times you say it, there will still be a million people that refuse to listen.


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> All benchmarks that show up before launch will not be representative of actual performance.
> 
> Period.
> 
> And, I don't believe the Gigabyte data is completely accurate.


It be nice to have some true marks B4 the Launch to show the public whats WHAT! Ya dig whatm saying? 

Better be worth the wait! that's all I'm sayin


----------



## happita (Sep 2, 2011)

We love you JF-AMD. Mainly because you put most of our feelings at ease. I've been so tired of hearing all of this speculation and seeing all these useless projected performance charts...yes I'm looking at you seronx.
Speculating isn't a bad thing, but it usually gets out of hand here because people don't have anything else better to talk about. So what do they do, they start yet another Bulldozer thread to see who else will throw their 2 cents in.
THANK YOU JF-AMD!!


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 2, 2011)

happita said:


> We love you JF-AMD. Mainly because you put most of our feelings at ease. I've been so tired of hearing all of this speculation and seeing all these useless projected performance charts...yes I'm looking at you seronx.
> Speculating isn't a bad thing, but it usually gets out of hand here because people don't have anything else better to talk about. So what do they do, they start yet another Bulldozer thread to see who else will throw their 2 cents in.
> THANK YOU JF-AMD!!


Have you actually read all of Seronx posts? He makes sence at times.... But time will tell.


----------



## happita (Sep 2, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> Have you actually read all of Seronx posts? He makes sence at times.... But time will tell.



Ok, the majority of his posts is just fud. Case and point, I will point out a few that are just complete nonesense and based on NOTHING concrete.

Post #5


seronx said:


> Most likely out perform Intel options till Skylake
> 
> Bulldozer generations ahead of Intel



Post #11



seronx said:


> Bulldozer is a interesting architecture which many people are confused on...
> 
> *Alot of people say it will increase multithreaded performance but that is indeed wrong as when both cores are used in a module the effective clock is halved(Reverse of Netburst, where Netburst had a double effective clock Bulldozer has a half effective clock)
> 
> To make up for this performance drop they increased the cores performance to some degree*




My point is that when things like these are posted, no matter who it's from, are all baseless claims and/or an opinion. There is no concrete evidence to prove that these are facts, and no sources either.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 2, 2011)

meh buying ES/server chips is such a waste of $


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 2, 2011)

happita said:


> Ok, the majority of his posts is just fud. Case and point, I will point out a few that are just complete nonesense and based on NOTHING concrete.
> 
> Post #5
> 
> ...


Umm Ok I hear ya!






OneMoar said:


> meh buying ES/server chips is such a waste of $



Did you get one? then you know what to do


----------



## seronx (Sep 2, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> meh buying ES/server chips is such a waste of $








OS means its a Retail Sample
ZS means its a Engineer Sample

1130 supposedly means -> 30th Week of 2011

For $1000~(Only buy from official venders you hear ;D)

It will sell like hotcakes

As the competing server CPU from intel is $3000-$6000



happita said:


> Ok, the majority of his posts is just fud. Case and point, I will point out a few that are just complete nonesense and based on NOTHING concrete.



Not so sure about this one but my understanding is "Bulldozer" has been winning a lot of Linux based application benchmarks, and only on the Windows side does it show "Bulldozer" performing badly


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 2, 2011)

good luck finding a consumer usable board that supports a chip thats not even released yet


----------



## seronx (Sep 2, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> good luck finding a consumer usable board that supports a chip thats not even released yet



G34, C32 and AM3+ all support Bulldozer with a BIOS chip update

and certain AM3 chips can support Bulldozer but to how much is to be validated

Zambezi is so hard to type these days


----------



## billcat479 (Sep 2, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> It's just sad that no matter how many forums you visit, and how many times you say it, there will still be a million people that refuse to listen.



 This is what I love to call the magic of illusion. Or propaganda or what ever bias we run into day to day. You hit the nail on the head.

  I would give the info I saw on Tom's hardware about gigabytes information as about as accurate as you'll find. They are not giving any performance data, or have anything to gain or loose.
 Just numbers that have to do with their products compatibility. No more, no less. I can't see why this should cause any problems other than problems people create for themselves of for the same of making noise...  If true it's deplorable.   
  The release date is close and motherboard mfg's have been in closer contact with AMD and have had this kind of information for a while now. To design the FX compatible motherboard/chipset so if it was released by Gigabyte or if it was ASUS or MSI.  there is absolutely no reason to doubt the information.  
  Tom's hardware usually is pretty good about confirmation before printing but as I don't work there I can only go by experience with their data which is usually fairly accurate in this kind of stuff.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 2, 2011)

not what a I ment
show me one consumer grade LGA socket board
show me something I can stuff in a ATX case and use a ATX psu


----------



## seronx (Sep 2, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> not what a I ment
> show me one consumer grade LGA socket board
> show me something I can stuff in a ATX case and use a ATX psu



SUPERMICRO MBD-H8SGL-F-O ATX Server Motherboard So...

It's not consumer grade but it is a ATX class motherboard


----------



## Over_Lord (Sep 2, 2011)

qubit said:


> Thanks - I knew all that speculation was BS.
> 
> So when exactly, will Bulldozer be out?



19th september


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 2, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/6093242849_cbd8a9ea6a_b.jpg
> 
> OS means its a Retail Sample
> ZS means its a Engineer Sample
> ...



OS does not mean retail sample.

If 1130 is referring to a date then it is pointing to a date in mid july.

I am 99% sure that this is not a real processor.  Please buy one from him and let me know.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 2, 2011)

thunderising said:


> 19th september



Is this the official amd stamped, certified unless something unforseen  happens date? Or estimated.  Totally ready for some facts.


----------



## heky (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD should know exactely when they are launched!(FX chips)


----------



## repman244 (Sep 2, 2011)

heky said:


> JF-AMD should know exactely when they are launched!(FX chips)



He works for the server department.


----------



## heky (Sep 2, 2011)

So what? Are you saying that becouse he works for the server department, he doesnt know the official release date. Come on...


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 2, 2011)

billcat479 said:


> This is what I love to call the magic of illusion. Or propaganda or what ever bias we run into day to day. You hit the nail on the head.
> 
> I would give the info I saw on Tom's hardware about gigabytes information as about as accurate as you'll find. They are not giving any performance data, or have anything to gain or loose.
> Just numbers that have to do with their products compatibility. No more, no less. I can't see why this should cause any problems other than problems people create for themselves of for the same of making noise...  If true it's deplorable.
> ...



The only problem I can see with the Gigabyte chart is time. I believe they are on the F5 bios already so this could be an older chart. I don't believe at all that it was ever made to spread disinformation though.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 2, 2011)

heky said:


> So what? Are you saying that becouse he works for the server department, he doesnt know the official release date. Come on...



Yes. 
The same way the desktop team has no idea what's going on with the server department.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 2, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Yes.
> The same way the desktop team has no idea what's going on with the server department.



His desk is right next to the desktop guy. I'm sure he has a much better idea of what's going on than we do.

Plus, with all of the trolling he has to deal with, I am sure he has made it a point to find out. I would just for the lulz.


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 2, 2011)

If I lean over and look out the door of my cube, I can see the FX guy.

But I don't comment on client and I don't comment on launch dates.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> If I lean over and look out the door of my cube, I can see the FX guy.
> 
> But I don't comment on client and I don't comment on launch dates.



Welcome back man. Nice to see you around again!

Question if you can answer it.

I understand the bandwidth for the memory has increased for the new architecture but what about the IMC. Is it more robust to support the increase or are we looking at something like the Phenom 2 IMC?

Please forgive me if you have already covered this elsewhere.


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 2, 2011)

memory controller is completely redesigned for more throughput and aggressive power down so you get better power efficiency as well.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> memory controller is completely redesigned for more throughput and aggressive power down so you get better power efficiency as well.



On the Phenom 2 tight timings are very important. Will it be the same thing with Bulldozer? I ask because tight timings are always important but on your competition not as much. Can the same be said with Bulldozer?

If you cant say I fully understand. Gotta ask!


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 2, 2011)

If it is anything like the APUs then no tight timing will not be nearly as important. The IMC on the APU lives and breaths on higher clock speed for the RAM. At 1866 Mhz 9-9-9-24 the APUs gets 1.65 times the memory bandwidth of a Phenom II. I am hoping Bulldozer will get 2 to 2.5 times more bandwidth than Phenom II at its best which I don't think is unrealistic any more.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> memory controller is completely redesigned for more throughput and aggressive power down so you get better power efficiency as well.



Is it dual single-channel like on Barcelona or single dual-channel?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 2, 2011)

lol at the flood of questions.


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 2, 2011)

not sure of the answer on that


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> not sure of the answer on that



I think the question is:

a)will the memory controller be a single unit, 144-bit, with dual 72-bit channels,



b)or is it multiple 72-bit controllers, each with thier own channel?

I'm pretty sure this info is in the public domain via HotChips?


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 2, 2011)

A


----------



## seronx (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> If I lean over and look out the door of my cube, I can see the FX guy.
> 
> But I don't comment on client and I don't comment on launch dates.



Why doesn't the FX guy talk?{I feel like I asked this before, strange}

Why do you talk when the FX guy can clear up a lot of conspiracy theory and rumors of demise?


----------



## LordJummy (Sep 2, 2011)

seronx said:


> Why doesn't the FX guy talk?{I feel like I asked this before, strange}
> 
> Why do you talk when the FX guy can clear up a lot of conspiracy theory and rumors of demise?



He's probably not allowed to talk about it yet man. Think about it. There's not much he could say, as this is very serious business.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 2, 2011)

seronx said:


> Why doesn't the FX guy talk?{I feel like I asked this before, strange}
> 
> Why do you talk when the FX guy can clear up a lot of conspiracy theory and rumors of demise?



I'm thinking the man who handles the FX end of things would rather not deal with a bunch of fanatical fan boys on a tech site. JD on the other hand might have more patience to do so. I'm just grateful to get ANY info.


----------



## seronx (Sep 2, 2011)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...4297943087.166422.312410103087&type=1&theater







: o o o o ,,,,,,

THAT BOX! or belt buckle! /want/


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 2, 2011)

seronx said:


> Why doesn't the FX guy talk?{I feel like I asked this before, strange}
> 
> Why do you talk when the FX guy can clear up a lot of conspiracy theory and rumors of demise?



If you saw how much crap I get from the enthusiast market, I can understand why they don't.  This is not my job, I do this for fun.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> If you saw how much crap I get from the enthusiast market, I can understand why they don't.  This is not my job, I do this for fun.



Glutton for punishment?


----------



## seronx (Sep 2, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> If you saw how much crap I get from the enthusiast market, I can understand why they don't.  This is not my job, I do this for fun.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology

maybe you need to adopt some of this 

But thanks for everything JF-AMD


----------



## qubit (Sep 3, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> If I lean over and look out the door of my cube, I can see the FX guy.
> 
> But I don't comment on client and I don't comment on launch dates.



When the lid on leaks is kept so tightly shut, it's normally because the new product isn't as good as the competitor's existing products (Intel here).

Well, we know next to nothing about Bulldozer and it's getting real close to launch time, so isn't it likely to be another disappointing performer from AMD, like the original Phenom?


----------



## heky (Sep 3, 2011)

Probably, but we will just have to wait and see. i would really like to be prooven wrong.


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> When the lid on leaks is kept so tightly shut, it's normally because the new product isn't as good as the competitor's existing products (Intel here).
> 
> Well, we know next to nothing about Bulldozer and it's getting real close to launch time, so isn't it likely to be another disappointing performer from AMD, like the original Phenom?



Or, it's corporate policy.  Letting info out before launch only stalls sales. And OEMs don't like that because their supply chains are long.  They placed PO's last month for the processors that they are buying today for desktops that they will build next month that will be sold to the channel in november for the christmas season.  When you have that long of a lead you don't want anything disrupting the process.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 3, 2011)

So a leak about incredible performance would disrupt the process?


----------



## repman244 (Sep 3, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> So a leak about incredible performance would disrupt the process?





JF-AMD said:


> Letting info out before launch only stalls sales.



I think JF was clear enough.


----------



## Lionheart (Sep 3, 2011)

I can't fucken take it anymore I want AMD BULLDOZER NOW!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## heky (Sep 3, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Letting info out before launch only stalls sales.



Yeah if the performance is mediocre, than sure. But if the prformance was awesome even i would click a pre-order button. But that is just not case i reckon.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 3, 2011)

heky said:


> Yeah if the performance is mediocre, than sure. But if the prformance was awesome even i would click a pre-order button. But that is just not case i reckon.



He isn't talking about stalling sales of BD but stalling sales of the current lineup.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 3, 2011)

pre-release benchmarks mean nothing why don't you idiots sit your asses down and wait and quit pestering the poor guy its not his call


----------



## LordJummy (Sep 3, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> pre-release benchmarks mean nothing why don't you idiots sit your asses down and wait and quit pestering the poor guy its not his call



They sure mean something to a lot of users. I don't think calling everyone idiots is helping anything either. The rep wouldn't be here if he didn't want to answer questions.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 3, 2011)

doesn't matter if its not his call "playing games" and trying to work info out of him is just wrong and thats exactly what you guys are doing you really don't care about the benchmarks you just want info OMG NAO there will be plenty of benchmarks AFTER the chip hits the shelves


----------



## qubit (Sep 3, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> doesn't matter if its not his call "playing games" and trying to work info out of him is just wrong and thats exactly what you guys are doing you really don't care about the benchmarks you just want info OMG NAO there will be plenty of benchmarks AFTER the chip hits the shelves



It's funny how leaked benchies always appear when the upcoming product blows away the current champ, but have a tight lid on them when it doesn't, isn't it? This tells you something, doesn't it?

I'm predicting that Bulldozer will be ok, but nothing special and AMD will be forced to price their top processors "competitively". Yet again.


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 3, 2011)

I agree I think bulldozer will probably not be faster or even EQUALLY ( core for core clk for clk ) as fast as a 2600k and that's disappointing but that's not what amd has been about recently ( and that's also disappointing *misses amd kicking netburst across the court* )
amd has by far the best price/performance ratio HOW ever
saying things like ... leaked benchmarks = OMG ACCURATEZ or Well they havent said anything so it must be .. total shit ... ever consider it might be soo awesome that you won't be-able to handle it


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 3, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> there will be plenty of benchmarks AFTER the chip hits the shelves



Unlike you, I'm not happy to wait for benchmarks and reviews, I want to do my very own benchmarks, and I need CPUs for motherboard reviews.

But then, JF-AMD answers MY questions, becuase I'm not interested in performance at this ponit..I want to figure that out myself.

I've been saying for ages now no-one should be getting to excited on pre-release info, and to wait for official info; seems redundant to repeat it at this point.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> When the lid on leaks is kept so tightly shut, it's normally because the new product isn't as good as the competitor's existing products (Intel here).
> 
> Well, we know next to nothing about Bulldozer and it's getting real close to launch time, so isn't it likely to be another disappointing performer from AMD, like the original Phenom?





qubit said:


> It's funny how leaked benchies always appear when the upcoming product blows away the current champ, but have a tight lid on them when it doesn't, isn't it? This tells you something, doesn't it?
> 
> I'm predicting that Bulldozer will be ok, but nothing special and AMD will be forced to price their top processors "competitively". Yet again.



I agree , look at Intel we know how it performs weeks or months before the launch/buy it in stores...


----------



## LifeOnMars (Sep 3, 2011)

I'm just looking forward to the release, knowing AMD, pricing should be very interesting.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> It's funny how leaked benchies always appear when the upcoming product blows away the current champ, but have a tight lid on them when it doesn't, isn't it? This tells you something, doesn't it?
> 
> I'm predicting that Bulldozer will be ok, but nothing special and AMD will be forced to price their top processors "competitively". Yet again.



Really? How much did you know about the 6990 before it released? Which company released that?


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Sep 3, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=130733&postcount=387
> 
> Charlie says something
> 
> ...


There will be Bulldozer CMT parts at 2500k pricing that will multitask as well as 2500k if they are in the same price range...it will have clear competition, and probably lose out.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 3, 2011)

I'm just looking forward for something new. Don't want the amd guy 2 get into trouble, total dream job.  But I think what many want and will have to wait for is clearity.  Is bd designed to be in sb's zipcode or just a new path that amd's pioneering.  Clearity... that's all we want(and will have to wait for..... u guys are better than the gov't when it come to keeping secrets).  When coby(lakers) messed up he said so...... didn't seem 2 effect his image, game or $.   Tiger Woods said nothing.... ended up on saturdaynight live(funniest skit it years) almost lost everything.  Define the bulldozer or people will just make up stuff...like they've been doing.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 3, 2011)

@ Hot Chips, AMD said that they were targeting the 2600K with the high-end FX.

What I'm not sure on is if that's the launch FX chips, or if they are talking about revised chips that are expected in the spring?

Seems to me that they will release the next chips i nteh spring to coincide with IvyBridge release, as that's the only thing that makes sense for them to even talk about updated models at this point, so I'm not too sure, but I think I have a pretty good idea of what to expect, which is SB-like performance, but NOT IB-like.

They'll be close, anyway.


----------



## Altered (Sep 3, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Really? How much did you know about the 6990 before it released? Which company released that?


I don't know about the 6990 hype before release but the 5000 series seemed to be on every advertisement on every website.


----------



## LordJummy (Sep 3, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Really? How much did you know about the 6990 before it released? Which company released that?



I thought everyone knew the 6990 was just going to be a dual 6970 chip card. They didn't have to do much advertising, because it was already proven in the 6970 IMO. The performance speaks for itself. The freakin' thing is sold out across the world.

Side note: god damn bitcoin miners have been driving up the 6990 and 5970's prices lately. it's ridiculous.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 4, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> I thought everyone knew the 6990 was just going to be a dual 6970 chip card. They didn't have to do much advertising, because it was already proven in the 6970 IMO. The performance speaks for itself. The freakin' thing is sold out across the world.
> 
> Side note: god damn bitcoin miners have been driving up the 6990 and 5970's prices lately. it's ridiculous.



Everyone new it would be 2 6970's, but nobody knew if it would run like them. Nobody knew if there were going to be performance cuts and we didn't get a single benchmark until the day it released.


----------



## qubit (Sep 4, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Really? How much did you know about the 6990 before it released? Which company released that?



I think there were leaks, but I don't remember clearly now to properly argue it either way.

Anyway, I think LordJummy's answer to you is a really good one.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 4, 2011)

qubit said:


> I think there were leaks, but I don't remember clearly now to properly argue it either way.
> 
> Anyway, I think LordJummy's answer to you is a really good one.


 
There weren't any. AMD has been doing a very good job of plugging leaks recently. I just don't agree with leaks having anything to do with good or bad performance. If we had leaks we would know, but us not having any isn't telling of anything other than people aren't breaking the NDA.


----------



## qubit (Sep 4, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> There weren't any. AMD has been doing a very good job of plugging leaks recently. *I just don't agree with leaks having anything to do with good or bad performance.* If we had leaks we would know, but us not having any isn't telling of anything other than people aren't breaking the NDA.



Well, while I think it does generally indicate supremacy or not of the upcoming product, I think we can agree that it's not a hard and fast rule.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 4, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I have a pretty good idea of what to expect, which is SB-like performance, but NOT IB-like.
> 
> They'll be close, anyway.



I can live with that. While there are a number of ways to view that, trading blows with the 2600K in testing say both at their stock settings would make me happy. If it loses clock for clock and Overclocking potential, fine.

I just hope whatever this chip is and the module design/shared resources concept shows AMD is on the right track moving forward. Don't forget they bet the company on this. I don't think they would survive failure.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 4, 2011)

All I care about is if it plays game with multiple cards the same way. The APUs already do a decent job, so I'm fairly confident it'll be fast enough.

Besides, I've been talking about IOMMU's and crap for a long time now, and Bulldozer with 7-series GPUs should bring it.


----------



## seronx (Sep 4, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> All I care about is if it plays game with multiple cards the same way. The APUs already do a decent job, so I'm fairly confident it'll be fast enough.



With innovation nothing is the same

I vote it plays game with multiple cards the better way.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 4, 2011)

seronx said:


> With innovation nothing is the same
> 
> I vote it plays game with multiple cards the better way.



WTF does that even mean?


----------



## seronx (Sep 4, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> WTF does that even mean?



I copy and pasted and it didn't work as planned

Basically, what I meant to say is Bulldozer will most likely out perform Phenom II in multi-card scenarios

Same GPUs, Better Performance


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 4, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I can live with that. While there are a number of ways to view that, trading blows with the 2600K in testing say both at their stock settings would make me happy. If it loses clock for clock and Overclocking potential, fine.
> 
> I just hope whatever this chip is and the module design/shared resources concept shows AMD is on the right track moving forward. Don't forget they bet the company on this. I don't think they would survive failure.



Honestly seems like the only one talking about bulldozer  is ....us.  I've read more from Amd about  piledriver than bd.  I hope they didn't put up the farm for this one.  If all this silence is to keep intel from coming out with a quick one up then well played AMD.  If its houston we have a problem well amd gpus still rule.


----------



## seronx (Sep 4, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Honestly seems like the only one talking about bulldozer  is ....us.



True, AMD and Reviews won't come till Launch or NDAs end



ensabrenoir said:


> I've read more from Amd about piledriver than bd.



You might have missed alot of things since 2007->2011, it is just been recently they have been talking about Piledriver



ensabrenoir said:


> If all this silence is to keep intel from coming out with a quick one up then well played AMD.



It's more the Osbourne effect...even know that is a lousy excuse

i7 2500K/i7 2600K/Ivy Bridge are already eating at Phenom II/Athlon II/Llano/Bulldozer sales



ensabrenoir said:


> If its houston we have a problem well amd gpus still rule.


More Osbourne effect

It's more let's keep OEMs as happiest as possible...Partners(OEMs) hear about a range then slowly cut sales till the AMD Kool Aid man comes busting threw a wall saying "New CPU Architecture, OH YEAH!" then OEMs go :shadedshu then the cycle repeats for every new CPU annoucement

^Ultra, Ultra simplified and mostly fictitious

------
One thing about weekends.....that I hate

The time from post A to post B 
Weekdays - 10-1500 seconds
Weekends - 2000-3000 seconds

---

I wonder if it will launch with PAX hmmm it's a guessing game now WHAT event does AMD FX launch at lol


----------



## billcat479 (Sep 4, 2011)

There is also one more thing to consider on BDs up and coming release. I would only take the performance data so far. It's a pretty radical design as far as I can tell and I think we may also need software that is optimized to get the most out of this new cpu. 
  This has always been a factor as a bit of intel's even current lead has to do with software that was designed to run on their cpu's more so than on a AMD system so right off the release it will still be too early to get a real hard time scc. figure on it's top performance even if it's only 1 or 2% it will be nice to know. Do you follow me on this?


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 4, 2011)

billcat479 said:


> There is also one more thing to consider on BDs up and coming release. I would only take the performance data so far. It's a pretty radical design as far as I can tell and I think we may also need software that is optimized to get the most out of this new cpu.
> This has always been a factor as a bit of intel's even current lead has to do with software that was designed to run on their cpu's more so than on a AMD system so right off the release it will still be too early to get a real hard time scc. figure on it's top performance even if it's only 1 or 2% it will be nice to know. Do you follow me on this?



We have been working with all of the compiler companies for quite some time.

But that is precisely why I tell people not to pay attention to benchmarks that float around the web.  Most are probably fake, those that are real are probably not representative.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 4, 2011)

someone mentioned here on another thread that Microsoft was tweaking windows 7 to provide better optimization for BD ?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 4, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> We have been working with all of the compiler companies for quite some time.
> 
> But that is precisely why I tell people not to pay attention to benchmarks that float around the web.  Most are probably fake, those that are real are probably not representative.



Good 2 know you have their support. Having great hardware is only Half of the equation. Radical and new approaches aren't always accepted. I.e.  beta/vhs, laserdisks/dvd, minidisk/cd's, high definition disks/blueray.  Though my laserdisc player and minidisc player do make great conversation pieces


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 4, 2011)

Well with Bulldozer using the AVX, SSE 4.1, SSE 4.2, etc. instruction sets should help with this as those are Intel's. Things compiled for these no longer have to run on SSE 3 with AMD, they can run the way it was intended. As for the specialized instruction sets for AMD only will be where that optimization is needed. Hopefully taking advantage of the sudo SSE 5 trio (XOP, FMA4, and CVT16) will give AMD something to brag about.

I fear programs using some of a modules shared resources sees it as a single core and runs 1 thread. This could end up with programs that can run 8 threads and run 8 threads on Intel 2600K, but only runs 4 threads on BD. I am sure AMD has done what they can to prevent this, but still a concern for me.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 4, 2011)

I found this from JF-AMD on another forum and I thought that those of you who aren't cyber-stalking him like I am might like to read it.

Please do not start asking him a bunch of questions about it though, because he makes it clear that he won't answer them and the thread is locked on the other forum. 



> *Originally posted by JF-AMD*
> 
> 
> OK, let me begin by saying "I'm gonna post this once."
> ...


----------



## scaminatrix (Sep 4, 2011)

/thread.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 4, 2011)

noooo, i just subbed!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2011)

qubit said:


> It's funny how leaked benchies always appear when the upcoming product blows away the current champ, but have a tight lid on them when it doesn't, isn't it? This tells you something, doesn't it?
> 
> I'm predicting that Bulldozer will be ok, but nothing special and AMD will be forced to price their top processors "competitively". Yet again.



Honestly it doesn't tell you anything. The Phenom 1 was hyped up like crazy yet it was a flop by all intensive purposes. The Phenom 2 was a home run in the price/performance yet we saw no hype. People sure have such short memory's.



cadaveca said:


> Unlike you, I'm not happy to wait for benchmarks and reviews, I want to do my very own benchmarks, and I need CPUs for motherboard reviews.
> 
> But then, JF-AMD answers MY questions, becuase I'm not interested in performance at this ponit..I want to figure that out myself.
> 
> I've been saying for ages now no-one should be getting to excited on pre-release info, and to wait for official info; seems redundant to repeat it at this point.



Its the very nature of fanboys and idiots that makes that advice irrelevant. Patience is a virtue they will never have.


----------



## Frick (Sep 4, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Patients is a virtue they will never have.



I've got a deck of cards, close enough.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 4, 2011)

Frick said:


> I've got a deck of cards, close enough.



Yeah spelling fail on my part lol. Forgive me I'm sending this on 3DS.


----------



## qubit (Sep 4, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Honestly it doesn't tell you anything. The Phenom 1 was hyped up like crazy yet it was a flop by all intensive purposes. The Phenom 2 was a home run in the price/performance yet we saw no hype. People sure have such short memory's.



Me, a short memory? No way man! Now, where was I...


----------



## seronx (Sep 4, 2011)

http://www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=cpu_amd_bulldozer&l=en&a=

For those who can see it

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QLn9rR2rn5oJ:www.sisoftware.net/%3Fd%3Dqa%26f%3Dcpu_amd_bulldozer%26l%3Den%26a%3D+Sisoftware+Bulldozer&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 4, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=cpu_amd_bulldozer&l=en&a=
> 
> For those who can see it
> 
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QLn9rR2rn5oJ:www.sisoftware.net/%3Fd%3Dqa%26f%3Dcpu_amd_bulldozer%26l%3Den%26a%3D+Sisoftware+Bulldozer&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



I think AMD pays you to post BS information on forums to dilute any real information that may have been leaked. There is so much wrong with that "information" I don't have the time.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 4, 2011)

I dont pay any attention to launches till the Chip Goes on Sale


----------



## seronx (Sep 4, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I think AMD pays you to post BS information on forums to dilute any real information that may have been leaked. There is so much wrong with that "information" I don't have the time.



Yes, I am paid by AMD to post BS information on forums to dilute any real information that may have been leaked.(They pay me $1,500,000,000,000,000 per year!)

I know the "information", I think you mean benchmarks are BS

I am paid by AMD you know....(I am really not lol)

I posted the benchmarks to show off the flaws(The benchmarks are at fault not Bulldozer)

http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/1487490-post612.html

more stuff(Read more^)


----------



## Iceni (Sep 5, 2011)

this will probably get me a warning.... or maybe even a ban but i couldn't resist....

sorry AMD i have been loyal, But those benchies are horrible. I know we have a few days to go yet till we get all the benchies in, but the dead quiet is foreboding, not alluring.

For all the intel boys.... custom avatar.






lol i just realised i missed an N in month!!! who's the retard now lol


----------



## seronx (Sep 5, 2011)

Iceni said:


> this will probably get me a warning.... or maybe even a ban but i couldn't resist....
> 
> sorry AMD i have been loyal, But those benchies are horrible. I know we have a few days to go yet till we get all the benchies in, but the dead quiet is foreboding, not alluring.
> 
> For all the intel boys.... custom avatar.



More or less waiting for Sandy Bridge Pure on LGA2011
(like my system specs weren't obvious, lul)
Rather not buy a CPU with a zit-like GPU


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 5, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=cpu_amd_bulldozer&l=en&a=
> 
> For those who can see it
> 
> ...





Iceni said:


> this will probably get me a warning.... or maybe even a ban but i couldn't resist....
> 
> sorry AMD i have been loyal, But those benchies are horrible. I know we have a few days to go yet till we get all the benchies in, but the dead quiet is foreboding, not alluring.
> 
> ...





seronx said:


> More or less waiting for Sandy Bridge Pure on LGA2011
> (like my system specs weren't obvious, lul)
> Rather not buy a CPU with a zit-like GPU



You guys can go ahead and wait for Intel whatever, but could you please quit cluttering up this thread with FUD while you do so?


----------



## zenlaserman (Sep 5, 2011)

Were you birthed sideways, seronx?  Just curious.


----------



## seronx (Sep 5, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> You guys can go ahead and wait for Intel whatever, but could you please quit cluttering up this thread with FUD while you do so?



FUD less likely

Crap bentmarks more likely

None of my workloads are in those bentmarks regardless



zenlaserman said:


> Were you birthed sideways, seronx?  Just curious.



No


----------



## zenlaserman (Sep 5, 2011)

seronx said:


> No



Ahh, well, we can't exactly trust what you say, can we?


----------



## seronx (Sep 5, 2011)

zenlaserman said:


> Ahh, well, we can't exactly trust what you say, can we?



:shadedshu

I'm waiting for two things

Sandy Bridge-E(I call it Sandy Bridge Pure)
and
Bulldozer

Both are pure CPUs (No GPU components)
Sandy Bridge that came out 6 months is impure I don't want an iGPU(LGA 2011 i7 quad-core is $40~ cheaper without the iGPU)

I have a powerful dedicated graphics card already

I want a CPU not an APU

If Bulldozer is not all that even though _my numbers I ripped off several smart people _saying it's going to beat the heck out Intel once fully optimized

I would still be waiting...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 5, 2011)

we need a like n not like button for peoples comments n same with topics, aka like they do on Youtube n it be anonymous.

Atleast not having to replace sockets every 2 years like intel does.



seronx said:


> :shadedshu
> 
> I'm waiting for two things
> 
> ...







I seen on here somewhere the same kind of naming for AMDs product roadmap- Bulldozer Enhanced , so SB-E is enhanced model of the original SB.


----------



## billcat479 (Sep 5, 2011)

*my mind what is left of it has been made up*

I'm glad to see the software side got some results. Made me very happy.
  And those benchmarks are a load of yuk in many ways. I know one cpu is faster but I got my 6 core BE AMD and darn the benchmarks because no matter what I read it's what I see and use that makes my world real.  My system runs everything I give it very fast and how much more than that does anyone really need. 
 I admire AMD's innovations that have led the home computer users systems for the last 5 or 10 years. Time is varible for me so I can't tell dates or time lines. Our 64bit home cpus that Intel shot down as long as they could, multi cores and instructions per clock cycle are AMD led. If we didn't have AMD around the computer world would be boring.  We would still be using super hyped clock speeds that cook steaks and do it poorly on a single core. One thing Intel would not do is spend a ton on R&D if they don't have to and thanks to AMD they did have to.
  So this is why I'm buying AMD's next new cpu. I know it will run anything I throw at it just fine and dandy and I could care less about the benchmark scores. As long as I got a computer that computes well I'm going to be happy. And also give a little back to AMD for what they gave to us all. The ability to buy cheap cpus and fancy cpu's that used to be just in the domain of the supercomputers and mainframes and so on... Isn't this enough for some? But I try to take a nicer view towards a company that did have the user's interests at heart as far as I can read them. I may be wrong but so what. It's how I think about it and I fine with it.


----------



## NC37 (Sep 5, 2011)

billcat479 said:


> I'm glad to see the software side got some results. Made me very happy.
> And those benchmarks are a load of yuk in many ways. I know one cpu is faster but I got my 6 core BE AMD and darn the benchmarks because no matter what I read it's what I see and use that makes my world real.  My system runs everything I give it very fast and how much more than that does anyone really need.
> I admire AMD's innovations that have led the home computer users systems for the last 5 or 10 years. Time is varible for me so I can't tell dates or time lines. Our 64bit home cpus that Intel shot down as long as they could, multi cores and instructions per clock cycle are AMD led. If we didn't have AMD around the computer world would be boring.  We would still be using super hyped clock speeds that cook steaks and do it poorly on a single core. One thing Intel would not do is spend a ton on R&D if they don't have to and thanks to AMD they did have to.
> So this is why I'm buying AMD's next new cpu. I know it will run anything I throw at it just fine and dandy and I could care less about the benchmark scores. As long as I got a computer that computes well I'm going to be happy. And also give a little back to AMD for what they gave to us all. The ability to buy cheap cpus and fancy cpu's that used to be just in the domain of the supercomputers and mainframes and so on... Isn't this enough for some? But I try to take a nicer view towards a company that did have the user's interests at heart as far as I can read them. I may be wrong but so what. It's how I think about it and I fine with it.



Yep, Intel may have performance leads more often, but AMD has innovated better over time and been a main reason for Intel to not relax too much. Without AMD, we'd all be on P4s or maybe something like the Core 2s. Think 64bit support was more or less forced on Intel when the 3GB memory limit started getting focus more. 

Question in the next year or 2 is...will the pressure from the APUs finally cause Intel to get serious on their IGPs? Not only in hardware but also drivers. I'm doubting much change from Intel till APUs are in the 3rd gen. Public is not aware of the poorness of Intel graphics till they are faced with it. Even then, Intel is the name brand. But if APUs keep making a name for themselves and improve even more in the low end front, likely see Intel making some quick changes. I could see them doing some rather rash changes to chip design in an attempt to boost performance till they can refocus some better R&D onto it. Likely by 4th to 5th gen APUs, I Imagine we'll finally see some good head to head action in the low ends. Just don't see AMD losing to Intel graphics in the high end for awhile due to the more advanced Radeon tech.

AMD does indeed make the industry more interesting when they get a design right.


----------



## erocker (Sep 5, 2011)

I'll remind some of you that this is a Bulldozer information thread and not a Bulldozer speculation thread. Any more off topic posts will result in moderators having to do some work. 

Keep on topic.


----------



## bucketface (Sep 5, 2011)

to sum up what we do know about BD is:
It's supposed to be comming Sept 19th
It's the top model is supposed to be priced and perform competitively with the 2600k.
we don't know much else about it... other than a whole lot of simplified architechture slides, perf is a mystery.
i wish there were atleast a trickle of info comming from amd about it


----------



## seronx (Sep 5, 2011)

bucketface said:


> to sum up what we do know about BD is:
> It's supposed to be comming Sept 19th
> It's the top model is supposed to be priced and perform competitively with the 2600k.
> we don't know much else about it...
> i wish there were atleast a trickle of info comming form amd about it



Not to be mean but I am going to correct some areas


It's supposed to be coming soon

It has several model versions a 4-core, a 6-core and an 8-core version where they will be located in the Performance/Price and Power/Cost and Performance/Power/Cost benchmark trees is unknown till they come

We have the picture of the architecture and we have a software explanation of what said "Bulldozer" can be able to do but these numbers are "Yet to be Confirmed" numbers and other numbers are "Yet to be Caculated" numbers

Corporate policy prevents trickles of information from AMD


----------



## Tank (Sep 5, 2011)

i don't care really even if Bulldozer does not beat sandy bridge i think it will do a good job of keeping up and that's good enough for me

roll on the 19th


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 5, 2011)

So what we know is:
1. Its made by amd
2. Its name is bulldozer

Everything beyond that is either marketing or speculation.   It was fun to make fun of bd but as we get closer to release, I'm taking it more seriously.  This could be my next cpu, if it lives up to its claims.  I buy what I want, dosent matter who makes it.  I'll pay as long as its worth it and suits my needs. Now I wait for amd and the Tpu for reviews.


----------



## heky (Sep 5, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> 2. Its name is bulldozer



Nope, the name FX, bulldozer is the nick-name.


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 6, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Good 2 know you have their support. Having great hardware is only Half of the equation. Radical and new approaches aren't always accepted. I.e.  beta/vhs, laserdisks/dvd, minidisk/cd's, high definition disks/blueray.  Though my laserdisc player and minidisc player do make great conversation pieces



The problem with all of those technologies is that they required you change media/form factor.  Bulldozer runs everything that x86 runs.

And, your list really should have included itanium. 



TheLaughingMan said:


> I fear programs using some of a modules shared resources sees it as a single core and runs 1 thread. This could end up with programs that can run 8 threads and run 8 threads on Intel 2600K, but only runs 4 threads on BD. I am sure AMD has done what they can to prevent this, but still a concern for me.



This will not happen.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 6, 2011)

So, another delay?  Is it good, is it bad?


http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...s_Chips_to_October_Changes_Launch_Lineup.html


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 6, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> So, another delay?  Is it good, is it bad?
> 
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...s_Chips_to_October_Changes_Launch_Lineup.html



Better question. Is it real?


----------



## erocker (Sep 6, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> So, another delay?  Is it good, is it bad?
> 
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...s_Chips_to_October_Changes_Launch_Lineup.html



I didn't think there was a release date so how can there be a delay?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 6, 2011)

erocker said:


> I didn't think there was a release date so how can there be a delay?



its all speculation. It will be out when its out n I dont care about nothing till its ready for sale n in the hands of the testers here


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 6, 2011)

I actually hope it's true. I still need to get the Crosshair V to put it in.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Sep 7, 2011)

erocker said:


> I didn't think there was a release date so how can there be a delay?



it was said to be releasing the 26th of this month. now its delayed to october. Glad ive just decided to go Sandy Bridge


----------



## BrooksyX (Sep 7, 2011)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> it was said to be releasing the 26th of this month. now its delayed to october. Glad ive just decided to go Sandy Bridge



Agreed. I have a feeling a lot of people are going to head that way.


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 7, 2011)

There are a million dates floating around.  All from "reliable" sources.  They can't all be true.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 7, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> There are a million dates floating around.  All from "reliable" sources.  They can't all be true.



But...But...But...then one must be, right?


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 7, 2011)

Yes, one date is right.  But that means that 4,374,658,823 posts stating that they know the date have to be wrong.

Based on that, you are best off to not believe any of the "I have it on good information" threads.  After all, how many people said it was today? People are getting too caught up in the speculation and can't tell truth from fact at this point.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 7, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> People are getting too caught up in the speculation and can't tell truth from fact at this point.



Not too sure why though. It's pretty simple. If it's not on the AMD website, it's not real. I've been saying as much for a while now.

It does seeems like some really weird hype. Not too sure what the deal is, as I know nothing, but I cannot wait for the CPUs so we can "part the waters" so to speak, between truth and reality.

All I know is that you haven't sent me a flat of chips yet.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 7, 2011)

*nothing official....but dont believe everything else*



JF-AMD said:


> Yes, one date is right.  But that means that 4,374,658,823 posts stating that they know the date have to be wrong.
> 
> Based on that, you are best off to not believe any of the "I have it on good information" threads.  After all, how many people said it was today? People are getting too caught up in the speculation and can't tell truth from fact at this point.



At this point ..... its all the same.


----------



## Tank (Sep 7, 2011)

i'm still sticking to the 19th as that's the only date that has been confirmed by AMD thus far.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 7, 2011)

I remember AMD presented that slide that said the BD CPU's would be out in 60-90 days, meaning it would launch at earliest in mid-August, and at latest in mid-September.  That was the only real "date" that was set in stone by them.  But if it does in fact launch in October, that would mean that slide was incorrect, and AMD either lied, or delayed it.


----------



## heky (Sep 7, 2011)

I got an invitation from AMD yesterday for the AMD Fusion Zone Cocktail Reception at Yerba Buena Terrace at the St. Regis San Francisco. AMD says, and i quote:"We'll be making an historic announcement, and want you to be a part of it."

Maybe, just maybe, the NDA gets lifted then...

Oh, the date is the 13. September...fingers crossed...


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 7, 2011)

heky said:


> I got an invitation from A man yesterday for the Man Fusion Zone Cocktail Reception at Yerba Buena Terrace at the St. Regis San Francisco. A Man says, and i quote:"We'll be making an historic announcement, and want you to be parted by it."
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, the shirt gets lifted then...
> 
> Oh, the date is the 13. September...fingers crossed...



Fixed. Joke.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 7, 2011)

heky said:


> I got an invitation from AMD yesterday for the AMD Fusion Zone Cocktail Reception at Yerba Buena Terrace at the St. Regis San Francisco. AMD says, and i quote:"We'll be making an historic announcement, and want you to be a part of it."
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, the NDA gets lifted then...
> 
> Oh, the date is the 13. September...fingers crossed...



maybe AMD is buying ASUS? LOL j/k
do post what happens then! and pics!!!!


----------



## mR Yellow (Sep 7, 2011)

I received the same mail. I'm sure they will be announcing bulldozer.
I wish i stayed close to San Francisco.


----------



## heky (Sep 7, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> maybe AMD is buying ASUS? LOL j/k
> do post what happens then! and pics!!!!



Cant, would love to, but i dont live in the USA. I am from Europe, but would love to visit San Francisco if AMD payed fot the flight ticket.


----------



## bucketface (Sep 7, 2011)

this isn't entirely BD related but apparently komodo is being cancelled
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...r_Corona_Platform_in_Favour_of_New_Chips.html
probably just bs but if there is any truth it's likely just some updated processors for the am3+ platform in 2012, alongside komodo.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 7, 2011)

mR Yellow said:


> I received the same mail. I'm sure they will be announcing bulldozer.
> I wish i stayed close to San Francisco.





heky said:


> Cant, would love to, but i dont live in the USA. I am from Europe, but would love to visit San Francisco if AMD payed fot the flight ticket.



what did you do to deserve a invitation!


----------



## mR Yellow (Sep 7, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> what did you do to deserve a invitation!



Just registered on AMD developers site.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 7, 2011)

> ESTIMATED availability:
> 
> Early October. Not at all a guarantee
> 
> ...



http://www.overclock.net/tankguys-pre-sales/1111697-amd-bulldozer-pre-order-info.html


----------



## Poul-erik (Sep 7, 2011)

Many her speaks about the BullDozer, how strong and how fast and more.

I Remember then the Athlon 600 was born.

Lets hope that AMD maby comes up whit a processor like the Athlon 600 in 1999, it was a wery strong processor this time and i let the intels Pentium III behind.

I have used the Athlon 600, it is fun to think about the 600Mhz. 

From Denmark, my english is not very good.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 7, 2011)

Poul-erik said:


> Many her speaks about the BullDozer, how strong and how fast and more.
> 
> I Remember then the Athlon 600 was born.
> 
> ...



Welcome man! We have a bunch of guys from that part of the world. Just watch out for Dan. Hes not from Denmark but he is in driving distance........







The candy is a lie.


----------



## Rapidfire48 (Sep 7, 2011)

I have an invitation to the amd dev thing but I live in NY . If anyone wants it they can have it . I will send you the info via email.


----------



## bucketface (Sep 8, 2011)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4749/amd-ships-bulldozer-for-servers-desktops-to-follow-in-q4
apparently desktop parts will ship b4 the end of sepetember with likely availability sometime in october.


----------



## linoliveira (Sep 8, 2011)

I'm starting to think that AMD is just waiting OEM's to sell the stock before new stuff is released. This might be some sort of deal between AMD and OEM's. Maybe i'm wrong...


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 9, 2011)

that would be yes


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 9, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> that would be yes



Yes to him being wrong, or yes to waiting to sell off stock?


----------



## jewie27 (Sep 9, 2011)

In 3 years, you won't want a Bulldozer CPU.  in 2012, AMD is releasing Komodo 10-Core CPU.  So 3 years from now, desktops will probably have 16 cores.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 9, 2011)

jewie27 said:


> In 3 years, you won't want a Bulldozer CPU.  in 2012, AMD is releasing Komodo 10-Core CPU.  So 3 years from now, desktops will probably have 16 cores.



Komodo is Bulldozer-E basically


----------



## naoan (Sep 9, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Yes to him being wrong, or yes to waiting to sell off stock?



I'm betting on the later, since he already said that giving information will stall OEM's (current cpu) sales.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 9, 2011)

naoan said:


> I'm betting on the later, since he already said that giving information will stall OEM's (current cpu) sales.



Who at this point would want anything other than bd from amd? (Sound like a techo~sexual transmited desease) Because bd exist, every other amd skew seems obsolete.   Wow they're a victim of themself.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 9, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> that would be yes



Oh MY GOD! he finally said yes!


----------



## billcat479 (Sep 9, 2011)

*Your easy to understand which is good enough you know....*

I Remember then the Athlon 600 was born.

Lets hope that AMD maby comes up whit a processor like the Athlon 600 in 1999, it was a wery strong processor this time and i let the intels Pentium III behind.

I have used the Athlon 600, it is fun to think about the 600Mhz. 
 Was that the Slot A cpu's? I am trying to think about those speeds, I had a couple of the Slot A's. I remember doing some fancy soldering on the resistor's to change the multiplier on those. It was fun and you had to be careful... lol... I had a 750Mhz that I changed to a 850mhz. They had the cache at half cpu speed on the slot A pcb if I remember right.
 Heck friend, your English isn't all that bad. I know some people in the U.S. and Brit. that have a worse time at their native language than you did here... ha ha....  Your cool, don't worry about it...


----------



## Recus (Sep 9, 2011)

While Charlie Demerjian barks about imaginative Sandy Bridge-E problems *something is not good* in Bulldozeland:


----------



## repman244 (Sep 9, 2011)

Anand's twitter:



> anandshimpi anandshimpi
> Beware of any leaked Bulldozer benchmarks, unless you're running B2.G you're not looking at shipping performance
> 5 hours ago
> 
> ...


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 9, 2011)

LOL. Oh, so now everyone has jumped onto the "wait for real numbers" bandwagon all of a sudden?


WTF. I don't understand why anyone even needs to say it in the first place. Anand has basically said, yes, we have Bulldozer, and no, we will not publish benchmarks until we get a new one. Are we supposed to congregate around him because he has one?


----------



## repman244 (Sep 9, 2011)

Well he didn't say he has one, he only said that everyone should wait for the final silicon (It's what JF was saying all the time).

And why would they publish anything if it isn't a final product?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 9, 2011)

repman244 said:


> And why would they publish anything if it isn't a final product?



Why even comment about it? 

B2.G?


----------



## repman244 (Sep 9, 2011)

I don't know you should ask him on twitter 

I don't see why would he lie about it.


----------



## Frick (Sep 9, 2011)

I don't even understand why people still bother with this thread.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 9, 2011)

Some of us like to speculate and discuss about potential performance, if you don't like it you don't have to read it you know.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 9, 2011)

repman244 said:


> I don't see why would he lie about it.



I'm not insinuating he is lying...I'm insinuating that he is talking about performance under the pretense of NOT doing so. Read between the lines, my man, read between the lines.

Is it not that obvious?:shadedshu


----------



## Frick (Sep 9, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Some of us like to speculate and discuss about potential performance, if you don't like it you don't have to read it you know.



All I see is people saying the same things over and over again mixing it up with speculations and theories. The last couple of pages pretty much proves my point imo.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 9, 2011)

So? Obviously a lot of us here are interested in the subject..if you are not, you do not need to even enter the thread.


----------



## Frick (Sep 9, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> So? Obviously a lot of us here are interested in the subject..if you are not, you do not need to even enter the thread.



I am kinda interested, but it's boring to read everything again and again with no new points being made and people not taking a hint and then spam until lockdown. Because it's what the thread is now. And I'm contributing to the last part.


----------



## Frick (Sep 9, 2011)

But then again cows digest the food several times and it's good for them so maybe something productive will come out of this? Carry on, men.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 9, 2011)

I personally think a lot of info can be gleaned from people talking about BD still. All of the opinions offered here by all the members are valuable to me.

Plus, anyone that mentions performance, at this point, I'm adding to my "Questionable Reputation" list.

I may be a reviewer, but I have ZERO access to any info that is not in the public domain, and I don't sign NDAs. I've been getting boards shortly before retail release, but I am NOT getting products while still in BETA; I'm getting products from batches that everyone else will get form their favorite retailer.

Of course, I'm very curious about these CPUs, as I'll be spending a large amount of time doing reviews with them, so any info I can get will help me bring you guys real, accurate reviews. With my access to non-public info really limited, when I do a review, I don't have much help, and when I run into issues wit ha product, I'm on my own trying to find a fix more often than not.

I need all te hBD info I can get, and liek you said, reguritation can be useful. Sometimes you can spit out the crap you don't want to eat.


----------



## bucketface (Sep 9, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I'm not insinuating he is lying...I'm insinuating that he is talking about performance under the pretense of NOT doing so. Read between the lines, my man, read between the lines.
> 
> Is it not that obvious?



is there something i'm missing? 
B2.G performs better than whatever recent benchmark was leaked.. thats all that can be inferred by Anand's statements.. well also that there may be another stepping b4 launch. but it's not much to go on. it might even have been, an unintentional slip. 
(not attacking you just disagreeing on your interpritation)

anyway have i missed some recently leaked perf benchies? please link me up if i have.
(yes i know they probably mean squat but i'd still like to see...)


----------



## seronx (Sep 9, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I need all te hBD info I can get, and liek you said, reguritation can be useful. Sometimes you can spit out the crap you don't want to eat.



Bulldozer on Integer workloads looks amazing

My dreaded x264/h264 days are over!!!

60 FPS here I COME!!!!!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 9, 2011)

seronx said:


> Bulldozer on Integer workloads looks amazing
> 
> My dreaded x264/h264 days are over!!!
> 
> 60 FPS here I COME!!!!!



What are you basing this on?


----------



## seronx (Sep 9, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> What are you basing this on?



That performance based on various leaks of non-Representative benchmarks has lead me to make me say

Bulldozer for my workloads are 2.5~ times better than my Phenom II

And if the application I use uses the IMAC(Pipe 0?)







Then performance only goes up when it becomes Representative 2.55-2.75~ times is my expectation

Then you have to understand with a new motherboard the one I plan to buy I expect to get 4.5GHz-4.8GHz with an H80/H100 thus increasing the performance more


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 9, 2011)

*yes im off topic*



cadaveca said:


> I'm not insinuating he is lying...I'm insinuating that he is talking about performance under the pretense of NOT doing so. Read between the lines, my man, read between the lines.
> 
> Is it not that obvious?:shadedshu




True and by the way coolest avatar ever


----------



## billcat479 (Sep 10, 2011)

Frick said:


> That's not true either. Closer to six months than a full year. ^^



  Aww, hey come on, he's just rounding off. It's cool... everyone does it.... and now for the mix master 3 speed turbocharged wangjammer for 99.99.99.99 and only for the last part of last month can you get it for 99.99.99.99.... + shipping and throwing charges.. 
lol..


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 10, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Yes to him being wrong, or yes to waiting to sell off stock?



Yes to him being wrong.


----------



## MetalRacer (Sep 11, 2011)

Preorder:FX-8150 EIGHT CORE AM3+ 16MB BOX 125W 3600MHZ 
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop...1100300U031_BLA5134P.shtml&order_id=590972573


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 11, 2011)

Woah. Check out that price!


----------



## repman244 (Sep 11, 2011)

Well based on that, MY prediction is that performance is going to be close to 2600K.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 11, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Well based on that, MY prediction is that performance is going to be close to 2600K.



Yeah! 4 cores vs 8 cores CPU if Bulldozer loose or equal performance of the 2600k than i said it fail... an 8 cores Bulldozer should at least be 35-40% faster then Intel 2600k 4 cores IMO

& no HT doesn't mean squat!... it is still a 4 cores CPU


----------



## repman244 (Sep 11, 2011)

Goodman said:


> Yeah! 4 cores vs 8 cores CPU if Bulldozer loose or equal performance of the 2600k than i said it fail... an 8 cores Bulldozer should at least be 35-40% faster then Intel 2600k 4 cores IMO
> 
> & no HT doesn't mean squat!... it is still a 4 cores CPU



Why are you looking at the number of core, look at the price/performance.

Also I found and interesting post on XS by xsecret:



> From a micro-architectural point of view, there is some nice ideas in Bulldozer. But it seems they failed to finally implement what they expected at first. The concept of "cores" for Bulldozer is just a marketing BS. A FX-8150 is a 4-cores CMT-based CPU with a dual Integer cluster. CMT architecture is not something new and noboby called a cluster a "core" before. AMD just renamed a core "a module" and a cluster "a core" in order to amaze ppls with "8-core CPU !!". Now what's next ? Calling an ALU "a core" ? After all, why not ? So the FX-8150 could be a 16-cores CPU as well.
> 
> Edit : As a proof, if you look at their own patent (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20080209173.pdf), you see they know exactly what is a "Core" and what is a "Cluster". So why calling a cluster a core ? For marketing purpose of course, but that's still BS.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 11, 2011)

holy shit of all holy shits! its just 266$ ! i bought my 945 with 175$ 
shitmodafuckerasstitcuntcockmodafuckershitasstitmodafuckershitcom on!

sorry for the excessice fluttercussing


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 11, 2011)

That's ....too low.


----------



## cheesy999 (Sep 11, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Why are you looking at the number of core, look at the price/performance.
> 
> Also I found and interesting post on XS by xsecret:



why does it matter

the number of cores doesn't matter, the performance does, if it is a 4 core then it will have high single threaded performance, if it is an 8 core it will have high multithreaded

if it's somewhere in the middle the best thing to do would be to look at the performance and then decide what your going to call it


----------



## xenocide (Sep 11, 2011)

This late in the game, Intel has already made a significant profit off the SB Line-up, and could easily price match AMD when the SB-E CPU's come out.


----------



## tilldeath (Sep 11, 2011)

dunno, if it's on par performance wise with the 2600k and costs $266 @ the egg,  with a new customer promo that makes this a sub $250 chip.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 11, 2011)

Even with that many cores I say i-5 territory


----------



## martthefart (Sep 11, 2011)

only just got a 990xa board and 1090t cpu will bd cpu be much faster? any 1 know specs yet or when will bd b realeased? tyvm


----------



## tilldeath (Sep 11, 2011)

martthefart said:


> only just got a 990xa board and 1090t cpu will bd cpu be much faster? any 1 know specs yet or when will bd b realeased? tyvm



No one really knows yet, it's all speculation. That being said I'd say stick with your 1090 until the C0/C1 stepping is released in Q1 and then maybe make the jump. The reason being is from my understanding the socket will be changing for amd after the second round of bulldozer.


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 12, 2011)

I love how this thread went STRAIT to a Intel/AMD war.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 12, 2011)

Does anyone know how to gauge an items worth/ performance without, a comparison to similar items or the top dog at the moment?


----------



## twilyth (Sep 12, 2011)

Pre-order prices surface - 8120 listed at $222 will be $185-200.  8150 listed at $266 will be $230-245

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/2011091101_Pre-order_prices_of_AMD_FX-Series_CPUs.html


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 12, 2011)

tilldeath said:


> No one really knows yet, it's all speculation. That being said I'd say stick with your 1090 until the C0/C1 stepping is released in Q1 and then maybe make the jump. The reason being is from my understanding the socket will be changing for amd after the second round of bulldozer.



With the 22nm SB-E UEFI situation and the scheduled BD socket change I think I'll hold on my current rig a little more than anticipated, at least until the dust settles a little.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 12, 2011)

tilldeath said:


> No one really knows yet, it's all speculation. That being said I'd say stick with your 1090 until the C0/C1 stepping is released in Q1 and then maybe make the jump. The reason being is from my understanding the socket will be changing for amd after the second round of bulldozer.



I suspect that for the 3rd Gen Bulldozer, Im believing it will support dual/quad channel DDR3/4 and PCI E Gen 3 ports


----------



## happita (Sep 12, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> With the 22nm SB-E UEFI situation and the scheduled BD socket change I think I'll hold on my current rig a little more than anticipated, at least until the dust settles a little.



I'm thinking the same thing. I think I can hold out for up to 1 more year without upgrading yet, wait till BD goes through a few more socket changes. Or, if Intel continues to surprise with its IB and SB-E, I might have to keep way of the Intel then. Whoever has the best performance at a reasonable price will get my money.



eidairaman1 said:


> I suspect that for the 3rd Gen Bulldozer, Im believing it will support dual/quad channel DDR3/4 and PCI E Gen 3 ports



I think DDR4 is still a little ways away from us. But I'm sure after another 6-12 months, PCIE 3.0 will slowly take over and 2.0 will be the way of the dinosaurs.
Is it Intel's IB or SB-E that is going to have quad-channel memory support? If this is a performance advantage to having access to more memory bandwidth, is AMD going to travel that route? Triple channel? Quad channel? Sometime in the near future? Or just keep their dual channel configuration forever?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 12, 2011)

I really suspect that AMD will quad channel their memory, i mean its about how the motherboard is, not the memory modules, aslong as they are the same rating between each stick you can buy a dual channel set n then buy another aslong as the specs are the same



happita said:


> I'm thinking the same thing. I think I can hold out for up to 1 more year without upgrading yet, wait till BD goes through a few more socket changes. Or, if Intel continues to surprise with its IB and SB-E, I might have to keep way of the Intel then. Whoever has the best performance at a reasonable price will get my money.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 13, 2011)

Can i just ask real quick where you guys are getting your bulldozer information? ? i dont mean that accusationally at all i am just very curious about the tech and planning to adopt to it soon after release.
What websites are you using for good amd source or even forums with heavy bulldozer discussion...

Thanka for any guidance! Also when can we expect to hear more from amd about anything zembezi related? Any press confrences or anything coming up?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

Check AMD website. They have plenty of Bulldozer info. Unconfirmed info you'll find I usually post to say so, so no big deal.

http://www.amd.com/us/aboutamd/newsroom/Pages/newsroom.aspx

http://blogs.amd.com/all/?s=Bulldozer&search.x=0&search.y=0

AMD Developer Central is holding some sort of event tomorrow.


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 13, 2011)

Thanks, yea i guess i was just thinking there site is lacking juicy info haha im used to going to a site like phandroid to get my android fix, i guess there is no big amd 3rd party news site so ill keep an eye out here

Any good way to get live info on tomorrows event or even a good place to get a recap after it ends?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 13, 2011)

http://twitter.com/#!/AMD_Unprocessed/status/113380895834128385



> Our adrenaline is pumping from holding in our BIG secret! We'll be spilling the beans tmrw at #IDF2011. Stay tuned!



What's this and why is it at an Intel developer conference?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> What's this and why is it at an Intel developer conference?


LoL. Um yeah, you cannot figure it out?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> LoL. Um yeah, you cannot figure it out?



Well, there are some things I hope it could be.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Well, there are some things I hope it could be.



Porbably not Bulldozer, so not for this thread, eh?  

BTW, I have no idea what's going on, but the IDF thing, yeah, weird.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> *Porbably not Bulldozer, so not for this thread, eh?*
> 
> BTW, I have no idea what's going on, but the IDF thing, yeah, weird.



Yeah, I guess you have a point there. I just think it would be cool if AMD showed up with Bulldozer on Intel's doorstep. That would make a pretty big statement.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

For those wanting to upgrade, Ensure to have a 900 Series AMD Chipset or 800 Series chipset with the black Socket, normally rev 2 or 3 sockets. AM3+ is backwards compatible with DDR3 Based Phenom CPUs n supports 1st gen Bulldozer, n possibly 2nd Gen if they keep AM3+ around long enough.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 13, 2011)

"We're getting settled in for #IDF2011 & can't contain our excitement! We've got news that will knock you off your feet. #AMD"

 Havok for APP?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 13, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> "We're getting settled in for #IDF2011 & can't contain our excitement! We've got news that will knock you off your feet. #AMD



Oh my goodness!!!!! Amd is going into the shoe business!!!!!     Yes it all makes sense now!!!!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

seems all intel/nv fanboys always try to dump on any AMD threads, we seriously need a thumbs up/thumbs down button.


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> For those wanting to upgrade, Ensure to have a 900 Series AMD Chipset or 800 Series chipset with the black Socket, normally rev 2 or 3 sockets. AM3+ is backwards compatible with DDR3 Based Phenom CPUs n supports 1st gen Bulldozer, n possibly 2nd Gen if they keep AM3+ around long enough.



Got my board for about €60. 



eidairaman1 said:


> seems all intel/nv fanboys always try to dump on any AMD threads, we seriously need a thumbs up/thumbs down button.



Don't really see what you're talking about here, that stuff comes from AMD's twitter account.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 13, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> seems all intel/nv fanboys always try to dump on any AMD threads, we seriously need a thumbs up/thumbs down button



huh? Where did that come from? 




Well, what could AMD announce at IDF? I'm betting APP support for Havok.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 13, 2011)

http://twitter.com/#!/AMD_Unprocessed

Can't wait so see what this all about?


----------



## ViperXTR (Sep 13, 2011)

hmm, interesting...


----------



## mR Yellow (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm looking forward to their announcement.


----------



## techtard (Sep 13, 2011)

I'm guessing it's about breaking a Guinness world record for fastest CPU.


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 13, 2011)

you would be correct


----------



## techtard (Sep 13, 2011)

Do I win an FX chip?!  

j/k 

I will pay good money to buy one if they are as good as some of the folks say they are.

Nice work, by the way. Even if you are batting for the server team. I woud suggest you walking across to the FX guys office and giving him a hearty slap on the back, and a manly handshake from all of us over here at TPU!


----------



## linoliveira (Sep 13, 2011)

http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/09/09/guinness/

yay!

hwbot: http://hwbot.org/submission/2206528_macci_cpu_frequency_fx_8150_8429.38_mhz


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> you would be correct



And that would be LAME.:shadedshu

So few people care about sub-zero these days...

I'm interested to see how it translates to air and water clocking though.

Nice to see Macci back in action though. That DID make me smile.


----------



## techtard (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> And that would be LAME.:shadedshu
> 
> So few people care about sub-zero these days...
> 
> ...



The article states that they hit 5ghz pretty consistently on aircooling. And that they can take a lot of voltage.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> And that would be LAME.:shadedshu
> 
> So few people care about sub-zero these days...
> 
> ...



http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-bulldozer-breaks-cpu-frequency-world-record/

5+ Ghz on air.

Edit: I need to type faster.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-bulldozer-breaks-cpu-frequency-world-record/
> 
> 5+ Ghz on air.
> 
> Edit: I need to type faster.



Ha. they are hyping world-record clocks. I'll not be listening to the results from pre-binned chips. When peeple can buy them at the store, and THOSE chips do it, then we'll tawk.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Ha. they are hyping world-record clocks. I'll not be listening to the results from pre-binned chips. When peeple can buy them at the store, and THOSE chips do it, then we'll tawk.



I just hope it won't be too much longer until we can do that.


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Ha. they are hyping world-record clocks. I'll not be listening to the results from pre-binned chips. When peeple can buy them at the store, and THOSE chips do it, then we'll tawk.



It's good for marketing. And we're pretty close to release now (I think? I have honestly lost track) so those chips can't be that off.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> It's good for marketing. And we're pretty close to release now (I think? I have honestly lost track) so those chips can't be that off.



It's NOT effective marketing, when 99% of the worlds population makes a WTF/derp face when you tell them you overclock.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing it, really. But I dunno about good marketing to "normal" people. There' no possible "Halo effect" here.


----------



## techtard (Sep 13, 2011)

Yes. People think you are some kind of wizard or even a witch if you overclock.
And around here, they burn witches!


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 13, 2011)

Good job AMD!!!  Nice 2 know there's more than 1. Cpu maker out there.   Enjoy the lime light and oh yeah lookout...... there is a 2011 toothed  monster coming up fast behind you!  For now though u ru......  wait u beat a bunch of suicide clocked celerons.....


----------



## heky (Sep 13, 2011)

Meh, 8400mhz with only 2 cores enabled and over 2volts. We will see how they do in real life scenarios.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

heky said:


> Meh, 8400mhz with only 2 cores enabled and over 2volts.



It's a suicide run for the highest possible frequency. Look at the list: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/
All of them are single core Pentiums/Celerons

And they also mentioned in the article that BD is like a tank and can handle very voltages.

But like you said, we still need to see it's performance


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 13, 2011)

heky said:


> Meh, 8400mhz with only 2 cores enabled and over 2volts. We will see how they do in real life scenarios.



A hint of real life scenarios are the low prices they will ask for BD. Top of the line 50$ below 2600K. At that pricing, if it's true, I can't imagine it'll best SB.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 13, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> A hint of real life scenarios are the low prices they will ask for BD. Top of the line 50$ below 2600K. At that pricing, if it's true, I can't imagine it'll best SB.



I'll believe those prices when I see them on Newegg. Even if they are real, Bulldozer doesn't have a $50 graphics card on the chip (Give or take.) so that could possibly be where the savings come from.


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> It's NOT effective marketing, when 99% of the worlds population makes a WTF/derp face when you tell them you overclock.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing it, really. But I dunno about good marketing to "normal" people. There' no possible "Halo effect" here.



People still think of computers as magic boxes running on blue smoke. An entry in Guinness bundled with LN2 or whatever it was is sexy on its own and add to that an upcoming magic computer (which people will probably see it as) I think it has some merit. AMD now also can say "WE HAVE THE FASTEST PROCESSOR IN THE WORLD!!!!1!!!" which might be a flaky statement to us techies but it has some truth to it and it sounds good.

It will not make or break them but it's a nice thing to have.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

I dunno. I'm a father of 4, and you know, I do tlak to regular people daily about this sort of stuff.


Stuff like this is still very much nerdy to the general public, while computing is still struggling to become mainstream. They need something to appeal to the mainstream audience, as well as to geeks.

IF they could do both, that'd be GREAT.


----------



## bucketface (Sep 13, 2011)

to summarise some new info.
regular voltages for BD will be between 1.2v to 1.3v 
8 core did 4.8Ghz at 1.5v with an Antec Khuler (looks like a 920)
with phase change cooler just under 5.9ghz at -38c 
8.29Ghz on 2 cores using liquid helium.

so it seems like it OC's fairly well, now just waiting on perf figures.


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 13, 2011)

techtard said:


> Do I win an FX chip?!
> 
> j/k
> 
> ...



yeah, it was all their work not mine.  I'd congratulate them but they are off doing press stuff today, my row is quiet for once.



cadaveca said:


> Ha. they are hyping world-record clocks. I'll not be listening to the results from pre-binned chips. When peeple can buy them at the store, and THOSE chips do it, then we'll tawk.



Well, they were actual parts, not some kind of special part for the demo only.  I would be willing to bet, that because fabs are continually tweaking recipes on a weekly basis that given a couple of months, you could probably hit a higher score on the exact same model. It's the nature of the business.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Well, they were actual parts, not some kind of special part for the demo only. I would be willing to bet, that because fabs are continually tweaking recipes on a weekly basis that given a couple of months, you could probably hit a higher score on the exact same model. It's the nature of the business.



I guess time will tell how things pan out. Not like I think there will be alot of LN2 results that will interest me personally anyway. Let me see what I can get 24/7, and the improvements there, and I can sell these chips to all the BMW and Porche drivers that I like to call my neighbours.


Selling chips to broke overclockers is silly. You want to sell them to those with cash, and anyone that i know that has cash to throw around isn't gonna be running LN2 or LHe.

Like, I'm sorry, but that's the truth! There's a very good reason you don't see a lot of LN2 clockers here, and it has NOTHING to do with me or my personal opinion!

To be honest, for me, the only thing interesting in those vids, and the event, was Macci. I don't care what anyone else think...HE is THE oc legend. I mean, chew* is great, but he's said he's leaving the scene after Bulldozer launch, and he's the one with all the info, seemingly. I am loath to trust someone who's already announced thier departure in such a fashion.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Sep 13, 2011)

I want to see 24/7 clocks on air and water then benches to show performance against intel.


----------



## linoliveira (Sep 13, 2011)

i hope they pull some RL numbers tonight


----------



## twilyth (Sep 13, 2011)

Even time.com has a piece on this - http://techland.time.com/2011/09/13/watch-amd-breaks-8ghz-world-record-with-daring-cpu-overclock/


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I guess time will tell how things pan out. Not like I think there will be alot of LN2 results that will interest me personally anyway. Let me see what I can get 24/7, and the improvements there, and I can sell these chips to all the BMW and Porche drivers that I like to call my neighbours.
> 
> 
> Selling chips to broke overclockers is silly. You want to sell them to those with cash, and anyone that i know that has cash to throw around isn't gonna be running LN2 or LHe.
> ...



Couldn't agree more.  I am not an overclocker so I don't really understand that market.  As a matter of fact, why should we even bother to compare it to an i7 980 or 990?  Nobody really buys those parts either.  

I would love a mainstream shoot out that compares what people really buy in ways that people actual use them.  But then people would call me crazy.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Couldn't agree more.  I am not an overclocker so I don't really understand that market.  As a matter of fact, why should we even bother to compare it to an i7 980 or 990?  Nobody really buys those parts either.
> 
> I would love a mainstream shoot out that compares what people really buy in ways that people actual use them.  But then people would call me crazy.



ill say one thing Air Force buys HPs with AMD Athlon II X2-X4s in them for everyday use.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> But then people would call me crazy.



I dunno, I know at least some people will listen.


Heck, my ASUS M5A board reviews are the perfect example. I told ASUS to give me what would be the highest seller, not the top dog. They sent me two. Guess which reviews of mine are the most popular? 

I'm sorry I'm likely gonna miss the launch.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Couldn't agree more.  I am not an overclocker so I don't really understand that market.  As a matter of fact, why should we even bother to compare it to an i7 980 or 990?  Nobody really buys those parts either.
> 
> I would love a mainstream shoot out that compares what people really buy in ways that people actual use them.  But then people would call me crazy.



I like to call it reality. The difference between 190fps vs 140fps is still OVER 100 FPS! I've been done with the whole this processor vs that processor debate for some time now. Just give me a good quick STABLE chip at a good price.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The difference between 190fps vs 140fps is still OVER 100 FPS!



What am I missing here


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> What am I missing here



Probably about 50 frames


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Probably about 50 frames



 Well I know that, but that 100 more thing is confusing me. But then again it's TheMailMan78 so everything is confusing


----------



## Goodman (Sep 13, 2011)

I guess the NDA will end in 1-2weeks from now & we will finally see some bencharks on how it's perform... maybe?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> What am I missing here



The CPU bottleneck. You know the one between Intel and AMD? Yeah I went with the cheaper CPU because both brands were getting way more the my monitor could display.


----------



## bucketface (Sep 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> I would love a mainstream shoot out that compares what people really buy in ways that people actual use them. But then people would call me crazy.



what you mean actually testing similarly priced products in usage scenarios that consist of web browsing, audio/video encoding, gaming and other common tasks individually and then combined all at the same time (because maybe i want to encode something and play a game and maybe check TPU all at the same time). Not wasting time testing super pi, vantage, all other benchmark programs.
maybe even do a stock clocks comparison + OC'd to 4Ghz + max OC just for the hell of it.
yeah your crazy 
i would really love to see a i5 2500k and Fx 8120 compared in this way.


----------



## PolRoger (Sep 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Couldn't agree more.  I am not an overclocker so I don't really understand that market.  As a matter of fact, why should we even bother to compare it to an i7 980 or 990?  Nobody really buys those parts either.
> 
> I would love a mainstream shoot out that compares what people really buy in ways that people actual use them.  But then people would call me crazy.



Your right the Intel EE sku (980X/990X etc.) are for the most part cost prohibitive... good mainstream performance and good overclockability is the sweet spot. Now if BD can just be competive with Intel's 2500K/2600K? I'm looking forward to more info being released in the days ahead!


----------



## animal007uk (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> What am I missing here



Means who cares if its 190fps or 140fps, its still running over 100 fps. Well thats how i understood it.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The CPU bottleneck. You know the one between Intel and AMD? Yeah I went with the cheaper CPU because both brands were getting way more the my monitor could display.



Eh, my brain was stuck in a loop there.

I was in the same situation last year, I honestly don't care about brand so I went what was cheaper but still offered nice performance and a lot of features for the price.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> I would love a mainstream shoot out that compares what people really buy in ways that people actual use them.  But then people would call me crazy.



That's what i believe the majority wants, and why the recent overclocking record is a moot point for me.

I'm waiting for real world applications to come into the light for BD cause only then will that give me a good sense of where the chips stand. Every is generally about the bottom line which is performance, tolerance toward higher volts and overclocks is great though, just not what i'm eager to see.


----------



## mR Yellow (Sep 14, 2011)

Release me, release my body....lol

Release the chip already AMD.


----------



## twilyth (Sep 14, 2011)

The 19th is fast approaching.  Who's got their credit cards in 6-shooter holsters and an itchy trigger finger?


----------



## Frick (Sep 14, 2011)

twilyth said:


> The 19th is fast approaching.  Who's got their credit cards in 6-shooter holsters and an itchy trigger finger?



My CPU is actually overkill for me so it's no need for it. I AM waiting for reviews though.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 14, 2011)

Some really interesting "info" by Movieman at XS:



> I cheer good products. Blue,Green or pink, doesn't matter.
> Now there are things I can't talk about yet but I can say I think they have a winner here.
> I saw the benches...





> Patience my friend, won't be that long..not long at all..




Whole thread: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?275098-AMD-Bulldozer-FX-8150-at-8429-MHz


----------



## Zen_ (Sep 14, 2011)

Interesting info there over at XS in the context of the 8.5 GHz clock, and it's also worth noting:



> AMD said they found that the company's FX chips could reach over 5 GHz using normal air cooling or water-cooling rigs that cost less than $100.



That's more good news.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 14, 2011)

Hmmm. how much does the H100 cost?


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 14, 2011)

WANT! just got my 990FX in and ready to play with an 8150 if priced right


----------



## WhiteLotus (Sep 14, 2011)

Just because I really REALLY don't want to go through 14 pages of useless posts...

What FACTS are there about Bulldozer?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 14, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Well I know that, but that 100 more thing is confusing me. But then again it's TheMailMan78 so everything is confusing



Ok the Maximum Frames an Eyeball can detect is 60 FPS, so meaning if games are running at 100 Frames constant without any slowdown wut so ever the games are running great. Now if they start say goin from 100 to say 80 you can notice a graphical slowdown in the game, n it gets worse as you start reaching minus 60 frames.

Highest Recorded OC for the line is 8 GHz



Frick said:


> My CPU is actually overkill for me so it's no need for it. I AM waiting for reviews though.



Did L3 Cache Unlock on that CPU aswell, cuz Athlon Line dont have L3 cache but that chip of yours could of been a Phenom


----------



## Goodman (Sep 14, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> Just because I really REALLY don't want to go through 14 pages of useless posts...
> 
> What FACTS are there about Bulldozer?



Except for getting at 8.429ghz on 2 cores... nothing , nothing at all :shadedshu


----------



## Lionheart (Sep 14, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> Just because I really REALLY don't want to go through 14 pages of useless posts...
> 
> What FACTS are there about Bulldozer?



Good prices, that's about it, and a lot of fanboyismshadedshu


----------



## seronx (Sep 14, 2011)

http://blogs.amd.com/fusion/2011/09/14/what-the-amd-tech-guy-said/


----------



## techtard (Sep 15, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Ok the Maximum Frames an Eyeball can detect is 60 FPS, so meaning if games are running at 100 Frames constant without any slowdown wut so ever the games are running great. Now if they start say goin from 100 to say 80 you can notice a graphical slowdown in the game, n it gets worse as you start reaching minus 60 frames.
> 
> Highest Recorded OC for the line is 8 GHz
> 
> ...



I know this is off topic, but ...

It has been proven that people can detect over 200fps. So this whole 60fps maximum is just baseless heresay.

Also, people who have played fast paced video games for a long time tend to develop better visual acuity. So the hard core FPS gamers who say they need more than 60fps actually mean it.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

The 60 FPS comes from the 60 Hz of a LCD screen. In other words, even IF you can detect greater, the monitor is not capable any more, so it doesn't matter.

that speaks nothing to how games themselves deal with extra FPS; that's purely about the monitor, although some assume it means for the entire system.

Frankly, if a 1000Hz USB port can matter then clearly 60 FPS is not quite enough for all situations.


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 15, 2011)

Wondering what the outcome might be. 








I hope that AMD at least let some sites run a preview a week or so in advance although judging by JF-AMD's post I guess we'll get benchmarks until launch day.


----------



## billcat479 (Sep 15, 2011)

*Things are looking up for AMD on this front anyway.*



Zen_ said:


> Interesting info there over at XS in the context of the 8.5 GHz clock, and it's also worth noting:
> 
> 
> 
> That's more good news.


 

The below is based on very shallow memory of the old days at Intel and so are questionable but has common sense.  (I hope lol..)

     It's great news.  Speaks volumes of how well their stability and overall design has matured.  They have noise and leakage down and stable waveforms out of their transistors.  This gets more important as the cpu's voltage keeps going down, down and more down. It was so easy when they were at 5v, then 3.3v and down and down and down.
    At current voltages any noise and leakage even of very small amounts is critical. If they can get overclocking numbers like they say, then they do have a good build and overall design process from start to finish on the die level.  It seems also that thanks go to the people who are building them a lot.  Good Job G.F.
  This should give them a lot of overhead for the future not to mention combining these with GPU's for future APUs.  I really hope they got a winner here. If they do we are all going to share in it for a good amount of time. Even (ugh, the Intel crowd) as it will effect their prices which is where the everyone comes out a winner and all thanks to AMD.  
  It's one of the major reason's I support them, they are our safety net for low price cpus. Not to mention good ones even if the current ones are slower. They are still fast enough for any home computer.

     I just can't wait (oh yeah, have to darn it) for the day they hit the market to see just what we can do with them and what they can do for us.
     As I see it not being a rabid overclocker is when I get one I can feel darn well that I will have a very stable system as far as this area is concerned and if I ever have to kick it up some in the future there will be that room to play with. Gives me more time between upgrades which is always good to know.  And if I can feel the need to want more than the 8 core setup then something will really have to change in a big way. It's like I'm using all of the 6 cores I currently have... LOL..


----------



## naoan (Sep 15, 2011)

haha yeah, the last time AMD went for architecture change (well, sorta), we got Phenom I... and everyone know how that turn out. this time around, at least we know it is OC'able .


----------



## techtard (Sep 15, 2011)

Yeah, I was told by my friends how awesome the Phenom I would be, and bought a system before the reviews came out. That turned out to be a mistake.
The Motherboard I got is still in use, and actually pretty damned good. But the Phenom 9600 was a flop.

Lesson : don't build a PC based on fanboys opinions and out of date hardware knowledge. 

I am waiting for reviews this time around.


----------



## Poul-erik (Sep 15, 2011)

AMD had done it before,  in 1999/2000 there Athlon 600 came on the marked, it killd the King Pentium III, so it can be done.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

Slightly off-topic:

AMD Trinity running Deus ex:





Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa-Fdh3BXSs&feature=player_embedded

Source/more info:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4813/...-comes-trinity-amds-2012-demo-on-video-at-idf


----------



## naoan (Sep 15, 2011)

Wait, so they already have a working piledriver core?


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

naoan said:


> Wait, so they already have a working piledriver core?



It seems so yes.


EDIT: Love the name


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> The 60 FPS comes from the 60 Hz of a LCD screen. In other words, even IF you can detect greater, the monitor is not capable any more, so it doesn't matter.
> 
> that speaks nothing to how games themselves deal with extra FPS; that's purely about the monitor, although some assume it means for the entire system.
> 
> Frankly, if a 1000Hz USB port can matter then clearly 60 FPS is not quite enough for all situations.



ya once u turn off Vsync Graphical tearing occurs, in game or cut scenes, normally in middle of the screen on horizontal scale


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 15, 2011)

naoan said:


> haha yeah, the last time AMD went for architecture change (well, sorta), we got Phenom I... and everyone know how that turn out. this time around, at least we know it is OC'able .



I appreciate the "well, sorta", but the Phenom I was nowhere near an architectural change. The Phenom II wasn't either. This is AMD's first real architectural change in almost a decade.

I'm sure we all know how it turned out the last time AMD had a real architecture change too, but history has nothing to do with how Bulldozer will perform.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 15, 2011)

in all technicality, AMD could create a 8 core that runs on 2.0GHz and just blows the fastest SB-E CPU out of the water yet has way lower clocks


----------



## naoan (Sep 15, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I appreciate the "well, sorta", but the Phenom I was nowhere near an architectural change. The Phenom II wasn't either. This is AMD's first real architectural change in almost a decade.
> 
> I'm sure we all know how it turned out the last time AMD had a real architecture change too, but history has nothing to do with how Bulldozer will perform.



And that's even worse  No, that's not the point of my post, see the last sentences. 

Also, do you think that it'll perform worse than current Phenom II? I myself are looking for CPU to do lots of encoding and X6 currently has nice performance/price ratio for that task, if it could do better (higher ipc) with more cores and at about the same price (likely so), AMD have a winner, at least for me.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Sep 15, 2011)

The first Phenom was a bust because AMD tried to cram too much stuff on a very big node. 65nm was not small enough for 4 cores + dedicated L3 cache. The end result was a very big die that was way too crammed, couldn't clock well, used way too much power and produced a lot of heat.

They were doing the exact opposite of their GFX division, trying to produce big monolithic designs that were not efficient enough while their competition was simply gluing two smaller dies together to achieve a similar design. And as we saw Intel chose to do things the right way this time around. If they had done it without the L3 cache from the start and had saved the L3 for the 45nm shrink, I think the results would have been quite different.

See the problem AMD's CPU division has is that they always try to overshoot the competition by making huge and sudden changes each cycle. They wanna be that crazy inventor guy that lives in the basement and hold the secret to something huge. But they just don't have the resources nor the freedom to do that. Instead they should focus on small incremental changes and should try to push them as fast as possible.
I'm not saying that they should not try to look ahead and plan what comes behind the curve - keep that forward thinking but try to be realistic at the end. Shooting for the stars every time is great but if you fall on your head too often you may wound up not being able to stand up again.

My little rant went a bit off topic but what I was trying to say was this: focus on realistic deadlines and keep then instead of giving false promises each time.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

naoan said:


> Also, do you think that it'll perform worse than current Phenom II?



They spent years designing it, an ocean of money for it. I think it's pretty clear it would be crazy to work on something that you already have.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 15, 2011)

naoan said:


> And that's even worse  No, that's not the point of my post, see the last sentences.
> 
> Also, do you think that it'll perform worse than current Phenom II? I myself are looking for CPU to do lots of encoding and X6 currently has nice performance/price ratio for that task, if it could do better (higher ipc) with more cores and at about the same price (likely so), AMD have a winner, at least for me.



Honestly, I expect it to kill the Phenom II. I really have the confidence in it to say that it will be a very worthy competitor to the SB lineup. I have so much belief in my theory, that my Crosshair V will be here tomorrow. I have gathered what I can (Between the lines.) to build that confidence. If I am wrong, I will prove to myself that I am a much bigger moron than I think I am.


----------



## HTC (Sep 15, 2011)

AMD announced the EOL status of their Phenom II line of processors. IMO, there are only 2 possible reasons for this:

1 - Bulldozer isn't powerful enough for people to switch from the old to the new. I don't mean they're slower: just that they're not much faster.

2 - Bulldozer has such a punch it blows the old ones right out of the water: AMD would have to seriously lower the Phenom II's price and lose money in the process.


Personally, i would very much like the 2º one.


----------



## Kramdra (Sep 15, 2011)

Want to upgradde my pc, im still using a  a64 4200+ x2, so about 8 years old 

is AM3+ going to stay or is FM1 going to be the new socket? Im not sure if FM1 is just for the llano APU chips? or the high end ones aswell


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

Kramdra said:


> Want to upgradde my pc, im still using a  a64 4200+ x2, so about 8 years old
> 
> is AM3+ going to stay or is FM1 going to be the new socket? Im not sure if FM1 is just for the llano APU chips? or the high end ones aswell



Nothing is certain for how long AM3+ will last (it will end when they integrate the PCI-e into the CPU that's for sure), FM1 is only for Llano, the next socket is FM2 which IMO will be compatible with APU's and normal CPU's.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Sep 15, 2011)

You think this would perform equal to nehalem performance?


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 15, 2011)

Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:


> You think this would perform equal to nehalem performance?



Possibly, Nehalem is almost around Sandy Bridge performance at times and i do believe that AMD's Bulldozer chips will probably hit around SB performance but i still believe that the overall performance crown will remain at Intel with SB-E.

Then again, Bulldozer is expected to be more affordable then SB-E and more likely competitively priced toward the 1155 SB chips, and if performance is decent enough for your average gamer/enthusiast who doesn't work at Goldman Sachs, then BD might be one popular line of chips.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

Official Benchmarks:

translated:


> In the infamous hotel room two blocks away from IDF, AMD is our first official benchmark results of the AMD FX "Bulldozer" processor shown. Since both tests are presumably carefully chosen for the new platform to put in a good light, we can based on these numbers no conclusions. Yet we want the results do not remember.
> 
> First they showed a comparison between a new unspecified AMD FX processor and an unspecified Intel processor i5 Sandy Bridge, with the help of the program Handbrake a video of 5 minutes is converted to H.264 video in SD resolution. The AMD FX processor with eight cores perform this function with an average of 223 frames per second, the i5 with four cores came in at 188 fps. Both systems will be comparable in price according to AMD, which it wants to show that AMD a better price / performance offering. That may be the case, but who has a more negative view would conclude that AMD is looking to double the number of cores needs to less than 20% better performance available.
> 
> ...



http://nl.hardware.info/nieuws/24619/eerste-officiele-benchmarks-amd-fx-processor


The benchmarks don't tell very much, especially the gaming one since it's probably more GPU limited than CPU.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 15, 2011)

How exactly are those official?  There is no data that you can actually see.  No video of the games running, no charts depicting max\min FPS, just some guys saying they saw something.  How is that any different from the random Chinese sites that post Cinebench SS' and such?


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

xenocide said:


> How exactly are those official?  There is no data that you can actually see.  No video of the games running, no charts depicting max\min FPS, just some guys saying they saw something.  How is that any different from the random Chinese sites that post Cinebench SS' and such?



Well the title on the site says so (I only wrote what I saw ), but I agree you can't draw any conclusions from this.


----------



## xenocide (Sep 15, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Well the title on the site says so (I only wrote what I saw ), but I agree you can't draw any conclusions from this.



I mean if that's true, that sounds awesome, and means Bulldozer might actually be worth the wait.  One could easily point out that Dirt 3 test is a little wonky because of the strain on the GPU though. :/


----------



## heky (Sep 15, 2011)

If this is true, the 8 core FX with a higher clock(stock) is only a little faster than a 4 core i5 2500K with a lower clock(stock). Weak, seriouslly.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 15, 2011)

heky said:


> If this is true, the 8 core FX with a higher clock(stock) is only a little faster than a 4 core i5 2500K with a lower clock(stock). Weak, seriouslly.



Read the article again. The  8 Core FX beat out a $600 an Intel Core i7 980X.


----------



## heky (Sep 15, 2011)

Ehm, nope, the article says an unspecified i5 sandy bridge and an unspecified AMD processor for the first test(video conversion) and in the second test(gaming), there is the i7 980x, but we all know why they chose that processor, becouse sandy bridge is faster in games than i7 980. So i have to dissapoint you, BD just isnt that great as it appears, judgeing by the article.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 15, 2011)

heky said:


> If this is true, the 8 core FX with a higher clock(stock) is only a little faster than a 4 core i5 2500K with a lower clock(stock). Weak, seriouslly.



+1

I believe this is bulldozer's performance level. (i5).  I believe its a good chip, just a few years late to the party.  If this came out before  sandy Bridge, Amd would've ruled.  Now no matter when they release it....Intel  will just pull the release trigger and   

CURVE-STOMP

Sandy bridge E is on the scene


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2011)

According to that article they are using a AMD cpu thats in the same price range as an i5 Sandy. The AMD processor is just under 20% faster then the i5 Sandy for the same price.

In the second test its about two frames faster then a 980 and costs half. So yeah Bulldozer looks to be a beast no matter what.

On a side note at that resolution its all GPU based. So the gaming tests are no good. But it does show that BD wont be a bottle neck in crossfire/SLI rigs unlike the Phenom.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 15, 2011)

heky said:


> Ehm, nope, the article says an unspecified i5 sandy bridge and an unspecified AMD processor for the first test(video conversion) and in the second test(gaming), there is the i7 980x, but we all know why they chose that processor, becouse sandy bridge is faster in games than i7 980. So i have to dissapoint you, BD just isnt that great as it appears, judgeing by the article.



The i7 980x would murder the i5 Sandy Bridge in a proper multi-threaded application i.e. one which takes advantage of its 6 cores and 12 threads.

And before you say, "well the Dirt isnt a game that takes advantage of multi-threading".

The question is, is Dirt 3 multi threaded and can it take advantage of 8 cores. If it CANT take advantage of 8 cores then the Bulldozer is almost just as handicapped as the i5 and i7 980 yet still is faster core per core.  Imagine the performance boost when a game that can utilise those 8 cores are used. 

The real question is can dirt utilise 8 cores?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> +1
> 
> I believe this is bulldozer's performance level. (i5).  I believe its a good chip, just a few years late to the party.  If this came out before  sandy Bridge, Amd would've ruled.  Now no matter when they release it....Intel  will just pull the release trigger and
> 
> ...



The only thing that will be "CURVE-STOMP" is the price.


----------



## linoliveira (Sep 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The only thing that will be "CURVE-STOMP" is the price.



+1
I won't give a leg an arm and a kidney to buy SB-E considering its peformance over SB.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 15, 2011)

These test are made exactly as they were not supposed to be. It should have been the 6 core Intel vs. the 8 core AMD for handbrake (encoding) and the i5 (unspecified model - might be 2400, 2300?) vs FX in gaming. I'm sure the results would have been totally different. Wonder why they didn't do it that way?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> These test are made exactly as they were not supposed to be. It should have been the 6 core Intel vs. the 8 core AMD for handbrake (encoding) and the i5 (unspecified model - might be 2400, 2300?) vs FX in gaming. I'm sure the results would have been totally different. Wonder why they didn't do it that way?



Dude just look at the resolution they used for the gaming. Its obvious these tests were designed to not show anything. All fluff.

The only thing this shows is that BD scales multi-GPU's well. Which is a good sign.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The only thing that will be "CURVE-STOMP" is the price.



Maybe... ok  probably.  But you gotta admit for its performance level sb was surprisingly cheap for intel.   A $300 bruiser that goes toe to toe with its 6 core $1000 beast. Sb-e will more expensive but not ultra expensive.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Maybe... ok  probably.  But you gotta admit for its performance level sb was surprisingly cheap for intel.   A $300 bruiser that goes toe to toe with its 6 core $1000 beast. Sb-e will more expensive but not ultra expensive.



I agree. But the early benches also show that its performance over the current SB are not ultra good ether.

Wild guess is Bulldozer will be on par or nipping at sandys toes and Sandy-E will be maybe 20% faster.

At the end of the day we all win man. Competition is good. The stiffer the better!............thats what she said.


----------



## heky (Sep 15, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> The i7 980x would murder the i5 Sandy Bridge in a proper multi-threaded application i.e. one which takes advantage of its 6 cores and 12 threads.
> 
> And before you say, "well the Dirt isnt a game that takes advantage of multi-threading".
> 
> ...



Are you for real, 1core vs 1core @same clock, sandy bridge obliterates the i7 980. Wtf. And even if DIRT cant take advantage of 8 buldozer cores, sandy bridge still beats it, becouse it beats the i7 980 in gaming. i am not saying it sucks, but for so many years of developing its just weak, imo.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

OK boys, there's you're performance, now let's line up like some nice school girls, empty our wallets, and bend over.

Because everyone likes a good ass kicking.

Oh look, they used some apps I use in my reviews. GO figure. And since i bench those apps, I understand the workload they produce.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

Ah the good old number of cores vs number of cores comparison. Like any of you buy a cpu by comparing that.
And since I see many of you are interested in gaming, you should be looking for the 4 core FX numbers and not the 8 core version (and as we know the 4 core version has the same L3 cache of an 8 core version and very aggressive frequency, which games like).

These numbers aren't really telling much except maybe for the first one (video encoding) but we have no idea which intel chip model was used, second was IMO highly GPU limited and again doesn't say anything.

If we go with the rumored price of ~$260 (which is, mind you for the top model!) which beats a similar priced counterpart in multithread (if we trust these numbers), that's a win. As to single thread performance, well that is a tough one since aggressive turbo could make up for the lower IPC compared to say SB CPU.

All in all I think we should all still wait for more numbers and better comparisons, these don't tell us much.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 15, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Ah the good old number of cores vs number of cores comparison. Like any of you buy a cpu by comparing that.
> And since I see many of you are interested in gaming, you should be looking for the 4 core FX numbers and not the 8 core version (and as we know the 4 core version has the same L3 cache of an 8 core version and very aggressive frequency, which games like).
> 
> These numbers aren't really telling much except maybe for the first one (video encoding) but we have no ideas which intel chip model was used, second was IMO highly GPU limited and again doesn't say anything.
> ...


Logic has no place on a tech forum when it comes to rumors man. I should report you!


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Logic has no place on a tech forum when it comes to rumors man. I should report you!



Sorry! What I meant to say was it will be on par with a Pentium 4, maybe a little better in multithread.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

repman244 said:


> These numbers aren't really telling much except maybe for the first one (video encoding) but we have no ideas which intel chip model was used, second was IMO highly GPU limited and again doesn't say anything.



Actually, I can play Dirt3 just fine with a single 6950 on three monitors. It's NOT 60 FPS, but it's more than playable. It's not realyl ug limited, but it IS such a res that it's possible a few things are at paly here. This bench is partially useless. With Crossfire added, they should be just breaking above 60 FPS. 2560x1600 is not a killer res like it used to bem adn that app is NOT really GPU-limited.


Encode numbers are 8 AMD BD cores VS. 4 cores of Intel, and I do not see BD doubling i5 performance.

Of course, the starting CODEC for the video file matters too.


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 15, 2011)

heky said:


> If this is true, the 8 core FX with a higher clock(stock) is only a little faster than a 4 core i5 2500K with a lower clock(stock). Weak, seriouslly.





Crap Daddy said:


> These test are made exactly as they were not supposed to be. It should have been the 6 core Intel vs. the 8 core AMD for handbrake (encoding) and the i5 (unspecified model - might be 2400, 2300?) vs FX in gaming. I'm sure the results would have been totally different. Wonder why they didn't do it that way?





cadaveca said:


> Encode numbers are 8 AMD BD cores VS. 4 cores of Intel, and I do not see BD doubling i5 performance.
> 
> Of course, the starting CODEC for the video file matters too.



Who reports FPS on Handbrake? I've never seen a benchmark site use FPS on Handbrake as the measure, just time.

Like you said though Cadaveca, without the CODEC (and I'd add settings) it is impossible to know if that was good or bad result for BD compared to the i5.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Who reports FPS on Handbrake? I've never seen a benchmark site use FPS on Handbrake as the measure, just time.



Since you clearly do not read my reviews:

UH, yeah, that's why I say those benches are for me, because guess what, I report FPS, as I found the time thing a bit suspect:


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Actually, I can play Dirt3 just fine with a single 6950 on three monitors. It's NOT 60 FPS, but it's more than playable. It's not realyl ug limited, but it IS such a res that it's possible a few things are at paly here. This bench is partially useless.
> 
> 
> Encode numbers are 8 AMD BD cores VS. 4 cores of Intel, and I do not see BD doubling i5 performance.
> ...



1. Agree but it's ~2FPS difference which really doesn't tell anything.

2. It would be double if it had the same performance per core which probably does not, but I know what you meant.
What really bothers me for quite a long time is the way AMD chose to call it an 8 core CPU so everyone would assume it obliterates any 6 core CPU.
chew* himself made a lot of "rants" about AMD calling it an 8 core. This is the AMD's patent of a core:





Which I believe a BD core doesn't look like it. I'll also quote him: 





> Only reason I have tried to point this out many times so far is due to peoples expectations. Those expecting 100% native 8 core multithreaded performance have unrealistic expectations. Hopefully this gives them a better idea so they can have more realistic expectations.



I know we should all be just looking at it as an 8 core because AMD says so but then again people at this forum aren't really average computer users and should look at these things differently.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 15, 2011)

I just wanted to say everyone seems to be fixated on the fact it doesn't specify which i5 was used. It does specify which AMD FX 8-core was used either. This is more useless than you think.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> This is more useless than you think.




Yes/NO.

I care not about clockspeed. It's not like any of us actually leave our CPUs at default. What I do know is that AMD likes to consider price/performance ratios, so we can safely assume that the assembled systems have roughly the same cost. Pretty sure that the article said this too, no?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yes/NO.
> 
> I care not about clockspeed. It's not like any of us actually leave our CPUs at default. What I do know is that AMD likes to consider price/performance ratios, so we can safely assume that the assembled systems have roughly the same cost. Pretty sure that the article said this too, no?



True. But if we are going that route, what is roughly the same cost? Does that include the cost of the motherboard being used as that can have a huge difference in price? If cost is limited to just the CPU cost, is the AMD chip slightly more or slightly less? How does AMD define "price range" in this case?

Its all just too vague for me. A $20 difference in price up or down can make a huge difference in comparison to me. There are 6 or 7 i5 processors in the $190 to $210 price point. This can be ignore as all of them are basically the same chip with difference default clock speeds.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

I dunno, man, I pretty clearly read SYSTEM COST not CPU COST. $20 in system cost is peanuts, as we might be talking $769 vs $749. and at that rate, most "normal" people will snatch up what can be construed as the better deal.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I dunno, man, I pretty clearly read SYSTEM COST not CPU COST.



Well that leaves too much breathing room for me as AMDs top of the line mobos top out at $260ish, which I can get an G1.Sniper2 for $375 or whatever it is now as the "top of the line". Then use a $200 Intel chip vs. a $320 AMD chip to claim "similar system cost." You know what I mean.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

Yes, I very well do understand.

I dunno. I haz no CPUs for my boards(probably because as I have said many times, I don't sign NDAs, and I expect to be able to talk about stuff when it lands on my doorstep), and the way things are going, you'll have a review up with BD long before I do.

So you've gotta decide how you want to spin this. I already know what I'm going to do.


----------



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

looks like i missed a lot of stuff.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

Not really actually, we know nothing more than we did


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 15, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Not really actually, we know nothing more than we did



True. But big thumbs up to amd for all this quality online time were spending together


----------



## naoan (Sep 15, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Who reports FPS on Handbrake? I've never seen a benchmark site use FPS on Handbrake as the measure, just time.
> 
> Like you said though Cadaveca, without the CODEC (and I'd add settings) it is impossible to know if that was good or bad result for BD compared to the i5.



Um, I'd rather have FPS than time for encoding benchmark since it's easier to relate.

And yeah, setting play a very BIG role (even the video is, i.e. static scene is faster to encode), preset placebo is about 90% slower than medium in x264 (the encoder handbrake used) for instance. But I doubt they change anything between BD and I5 benchmark as it would mean nothing otherwise.

That benchmark is a good news for me though.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yes, I very well do understand.
> 
> I dunno. I haz no CPUs for my boards(probably because as I have said many times, I don't sign NDAs, and I expect to be able to talk about stuff when it lands on my doorstep), and the way things are going, you'll have a review up with BD long before I do.
> 
> So you've gotta decide how you want to spin this. I already know what I'm going to do.



I may get the review out first, but you will have better stuff to test with. I will compare it to the 1100T and an Intel i5 2500K and i7 2600K. lucky with the two AMD chips I can use the exact same setup, just swap the chips out right. So comparison of AMD to AMD should be easy. For the Intel comparison I am going just try to give people what they want to see in core vs. core, same clock speeds, and default settings.

Once I have the charts for performance and I know where the AMD chips are falling, we can speculate about total system cost.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 15, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> The i7 980x would murder the i5 Sandy Bridge in a proper multi-threaded application i.e. one which takes advantage of its 6 cores and 12 threads.
> 
> And before you say, "well the Dirt isnt a game that takes advantage of multi-threading".
> 
> ...



ya but not all software is multithreaded, so a CPU has to be excellent at doing both multi threaded and mono threaded applications


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 15, 2011)

heky said:


> Are you for real, 1core vs 1core @same clock, sandy bridge obliterates the i7 980. Wtf.




I said in an environment where the i7 980 extreme edition can take advantage of its 6 cores and 12 threads it will beat the Sandy Bridge - I never said core for core and clock for clock in a single threaded application.



heky said:


> And even if DIRT cant take advantage of 8 buldozer cores*, sandy bridge still beats it, *becouse it beats the i7 980 in gaming. i am not saying it sucks, but for so many years of developing its just weak, imo.



Exactly! Dirt 3 does not utilise all the cores of the i5, i7 or Bulldozer. If only 2 cores are being utilised on the bulldozer and i5, and the Bulldozer beats it (and it does beat if that article is correct), its fair to say the Bulldozer is possibly core for core, or near core for core to the i5 Sandy's performance.


----------



## heky (Sep 15, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Exactly! Dirt 3 does not utilise all the cores of the i5, i7 or Bulldozer. If only 2 cores are being utilised on the bulldozer and i5, and the Bulldozer beats it (and it does beat if that article is correct), its fair to say the Bulldozer is possibly core for core, or near core for core to the i5 Sandy's performance.



No it didnt beat sandy bridge in the article, it beat the i7 980, which is slower for gaming than sandy. that was my point. Read it again.


----------



## trickson (Sep 15, 2011)

I love the name of this thread . Not much Information at all on the BD lots of speculation no information . Change the name to the BD speculations thread . After all that is far more accurate .


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 15, 2011)

As a side note i just installed my Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 board!


----------



## erocker (Sep 15, 2011)

trickson said:


> I love the name of this thread . Not much Information at all on the BD lots of speculation no information . Change the name to the BD speculations thread . After all that is far more accurate .



Okay, so if you have any relevant information, please post it. We don't need people posting speculation or commenting on it. 

Have something to add? Post it.

Have something to add not relevant to the topic. Don't post.

This post can serve as a warning to all of you.

Thank you.


----------



## trickson (Sep 15, 2011)

erocker said:


> Okay, so if you have any relevant information, please post it. We don't need people posting speculation or commenting on it.
> 
> Have something to add? Post it.
> 
> ...



OK . BD has more IPC . How many ? I have no clue , How will it perform against the SB with the added IPC ? I do not know . But more is better .


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 15, 2011)

heky said:


> No it didnt beat sandy bridge in the article, it beat the i7 980, which is slower for gaming than sandy. that was my point. Read it again.




In gaming: considering that the i7 980 6 core, 12 thread monster isnt too far behind Sandy Bridge, we can use our own judgement to predict Bulldozer to be near to the Sandy's performance. Even if Bulldozer is slower it will be near.

My own judgement is reinforced by the fact the Bulldozer goes on to beat the i5 Sandy in Handbrake.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Sep 15, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Possibly, Nehalem is almost around Sandy Bridge performance at times and i do believe that AMD's Bulldozer chips will probably hit around SB performance but i still believe that the overall performance crown will remain at Intel with SB-E.
> 
> Then again, Bulldozer is expected to be more affordable then SB-E and more likely competitively priced toward the 1155 SB chips, and if performance is decent enough for your average gamer/enthusiast who doesn't work at Goldman Sachs, then BD might be one popular line of chips.


Competitively priced indeed. Was in the market for some used nehalems around that price range, might be getting this setup instead. My system's becoming unstable with the current OC. Its that time again


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 15, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> As a side note i just installed my Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 board!



How did it go? Any issues?


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Since you clearly do not read my reviews:
> 
> UH, yeah, that's why I say those benches are for me, because guess what, I report FPS, as I found the time thing a bit suspect:
> 
> http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/G1_Sniper2/images/handbrake.gif



 I was wondering why I couldn't find you doing any of the CPU reviews.

Though without knowing the settings of CODEC, how much can anyone compare those "leaked" results to anything else?

Up to how many threads is Handbrake able to take advantage of anyway (if you happen to know)?


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 15, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> How did it go? Any issues?



Nope everything is up and running great so far, haven't done any overclocking on the board yet though.

Very eager to get a Bulldozer chip running on this board.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 15, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Nope everything is up and running great so far, haven't done any overclocking on the board yet though.
> 
> Very eager to get a Bulldozer chip running on this board.



That's good to hear man. Congrats. I think Bulldozer might be here sooner than most people think.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> I was wondering why I couldn't find you doing any of the CPU reviews.
> 
> Though without knowing the settings of CODEC, how much can anyone compare those "leaked" results to anything else?
> 
> Up to how many threads is Handbrake able to take advantage of anyway (if you happen to know)?



I do motherboard reviews only.

To me, this is unimportant. I suppose the they used the same settings, and same source files, as well as same ram speed and HDD config. That said, the percentile difference should be roughly equal. It is possible that Handbrake has been tweaked to take advantage of GPUs, too, there are many unknowns here.


However, I choose to to accept they used the same source file for each, and one finished faster than the other. If the price is the same, but one is faster, clearly one is the better option for your dollar?

I care more about usability than benchmark performance. My A8-3850 system, when paired with an SSD, seems just as fast as my Sandybridge rig for most of my daily uses. And it uses less power while doing so.

There seems to be one obvious thing everyone is missing, but I'm not gonna say anything myself.


----------



## seronx (Sep 15, 2011)

repman244 said:


> 2. It would be double if it had the same performance per core which probably does not, but I know what you meant.
> What really bothers me for quite a long time is the way AMD chose to call it an 8 core CPU so everyone would assume it obliterates any 6 core CPU.
> chew* himself made a lot of "rants" about AMD calling it an 8 core. This is the AMD's patent of a core:
> http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5570/25718801.png
> Which I believe a BD core doesn't look like it. I'll also quote him:



The Module is the Core Architecture

While the cores that we have known in previous AMD architectures to be the integer cluster(GPR ALU cluster)

Windws OS will always see "cores"

The OS considers GPR ALU Clusters cores



cadaveca said:


> There seems to be one obvious thing everyone is missing, but I'm not gonna say anything myself.



Cost?

980X/990X $1000
FX-8000 $270 and below



trickson said:


> OK . BD has more IPC . How many ? I have no clue , How will it perform against the SB with the added IPC ? I do not know . But more is better .



Total Theoretical IPC for K15 is lower than Sandy Bridge but Total Actual IPC for K15 is higher than K10


----------



## naoan (Sep 15, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Up to how many threads is Handbrake able to take advantage of anyway (if you happen to know)?



If they use x264 as the encoder (which they should), up to 128. http://mewiki.project357.com/wiki/X264_Settings#threads


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 15, 2011)

Anyone else hammering the overtime at the min just in case it finally arrives im effin sick of work and approaching my second weekend in the place Feck.

come on AMD rep dude sort it, so i can blow some doe next month lol


----------



## trickson (Sep 15, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Anyone else hammering the overtime at the min just in case it finally arrives im effin sick of work and approaching my second weekend in the place Feck.
> 
> come on AMD rep dude sort it, so i can blow some doe next month lol



I am ! I have 2 grand burning a hole in my pocket right now ! And till I get some solid information I have to wait !


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 15, 2011)

just got my ASRock 990FX extreme4 set up in my system. overclocks GREAT, easy as can be too...

im currently running as follows:
CPU: Phenom II x4 955 @ 4.2Ghz (210 x 20.0)
NB: @2520 Mhz
RAM: ddr3 1666


i will probably crank things up a bit more later but temperatures are great, i have air cooling (thermaltake spinQ) on my CPU and the rest is stock, good airflow through my case but again temps are really good for the speeds im currently running.

now i just need a bulldozer


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 15, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> just got my ASRock 990FX extreme4 set up in my system. overclocks GREAT, easy as can be too...
> 
> im currently running as follows:
> CPU: Phenom II x4 955 @ 4.2Ghz (210 x 20.0)
> ...



Hmm wonder how my bros PII X2 555 Unlocked to X4 B55/955 would overclock with 970 Extreme 4, perhaps to that speed idk, rather not find out till i get an aftermarket heatsink on it


----------



## billcat479 (Sep 15, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I appreciate the "well, sorta", but the Phenom I was nowhere near an architectural change. The Phenom II wasn't either. This is AMD's first real architectural change in almost a decade.
> 
> I'm sure we all know how it turned out the last time AMD had a real architecture change too, but history has nothing to do with how Bulldozer will perform.



  If you remember AMD's plans they made a cpu with long range plans from the start. It was built to expand upon and add seperate cores from the beginning so it was not any surprise of what AMD did. They had it worked out that way from the start. 
  To redesign the basic cpu would have taken them a long time that they didn't have and/or couldn't change because their long range plans were already in motion. It wasn't AMD's fault  that Intel came out with a better design. It was because of AMD that forced Intel to redesign their cpus from the MHZ blast attack to follow AMD's line of thinking in making them more efficient per clock cycle and slow things down.
    It was a drag for AMD that Intel has a lot more money and can spend more on their R&D with AMD already having done a lot of the ground work designs and so came out with the faster cpu's. AMD's goal was to make the true multi-core chip unline Intels tied together duo chip design. It's too bad AMD's design didn't work better but anyone can out do another if they spend enough to do it.
  Look at what Ford did to Ferrari with the F40. It cost a ludicrous sum to build it with a lot of trial and errors along the way but they had a goal to beat Ferrari at Le-mans at that 24 hour race and they did it for a year or two and after that dropped out.  In a way this is the way intel does it with AMD besides the nasty anti-competitive actions they did when AMD was putting out the best cpu's.  That was a real crime and they let Intel off to easy on that one.
 If AMD had Intel's funds who knows what we would have as AMD has been the design leader of trying new stuff with Intel following up with the same stuff for most of it but with a deeper pocket book. Like mentioned before Intel thought 64bits was a waste of time and I think they said the same with mult cores also but I'm not 100% sure about that point.
  But they had to follow AMD's road-map and make it better no matter what the cost. They sure didn't like it when AMD was the real leader and had a short time as the performance leader as well as the design leader. Now AMD is trying a new design that is a bit different but I'm not sure how much different it really is from current cpu's. I haven't been following it that closely anymore. But every where you look you see AMD's name behind the new trends in computer innovation. 
  The only thing I've hard about Intel is their new 3D transistor which is great to see. But to follow it up with a radical new design is not their way of doing things.
  In a way they are doing things like Japan does or how they used to do it. They don't invent, they take the tested new technology and just make it better.


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> To me, this is unimportant. I suppose the they used the same settings, and same source files, as well as same ram speed and HDD config. That said, the percentile difference should be roughly equal. It is possible that Handbrake has been tweaked to take advantage of GPUs, too, there are many unknowns here.



This is really the question on my mind. Not so much with the results from the article as like you I assume they used the same settings. Question I have, without knowing those settings that AMD used, how is it possible to compare those results from yours or any other side to get a feel for how good/bad BD is?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> This is really the question on my mind. Not so much with the results from the article as like you I assume they used the same settings. Question I have, without knowing those settings that AMD used, how is it possible to compare those results from yours or any other side to get a feel for how good/bad BD is?



Really, you cannot.

For me, because I run more benchmarks than are in my reviews, I just get a general feel. Memory performance seems better than Thuban, and the cores are clocking high, obviously. I am focused on memory performance more than core performance, as I have been saying for almost years now, so if they have solved that, and give better multicard scaling, then I'm happy. Pricing tells me alot too.



AMD did say 5 GHz on air, 6.6 GHz on LN2, then the rest on LHe?

That tells me that AMD's process is still a bit temperature sensitive. the core has 2 MB of L2 per module, so when they disabled the cores, they killed alot of the heat generation by removing nearly half the cache, and that explains why they got so much more scaling under LHe. 

The socket has larger pins, and the CPUs might as well, and that tells me that thay are going to be feeding killer wattage through the chips while overclocking, and the ASUS Crosshair V Formula's extra CPU power plugs furthers that idea.

To me, it's looking positive. I don't expect much. FX8150 @ less than $300? FX 3170 @ $279, perhaps? that says something too.

In the end, all I am looking for is comparable game performance for the same dollar, and equal or lower power consumption. I want excellent memory bandwidth. I want IOMMU support.


I do not need the fastest CPU possible. I don't need world records. I need fast and affordable solutions, and a good user experience. I am confident AMD can deliver on those things, given what I've seen already. 

I guess we'll find out more soon. I am broke right now anyway, so the longer it takes, the better for me anyway. 

I could be wrong, and BD sucks. But I like to OC too, and Intel is a big disappointment in OC, so if a chip can give me a few weeks of tweaking fun rather than a few hours, then I'm in!


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

seronx said:


> The Module is the Core Architecture
> 
> While the cores that we have known in previous AMD architectures to be the integer cluster(GPR ALU cluster)
> 
> ...



I know the OS will see them as cores that was not my point, windows can see them as 16 cores I don't really care about that. My point was that AMD's marketing is taking advantage of it to display it as an 8 core.
And like I quoted chew* some people may be "disappointed" with the multithread performance since it won't be that massive as having a true 8 core design.


----------



## seronx (Sep 15, 2011)

repman244 said:


> I know the OS will see them as cores that was not my point, windows can see them as 16 cores I don't really care about that. My point was that AMD's marketing is taking advantage of it to display it as an 8 core.
> And like I quoted chew* some people may be "disappointed" with the multithread performance since it won't be that massive as having a true 8 core design.



Multithreaded Performance is dedicated on to the program and OS


Final production silicon
Final processor microcode
Final system BIOS
Final OS optimizaitons
Final drivers
An app compiled with the latest flags
A person who understands the app and configures the test properly
Can you check them off

Then the best advice



> Never trust any benchmark unless it is open source and compiled with a neutral compiler, such as Gnu or Microsoft.


http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 15, 2011)

billcat479 said:


> If you remember AMD's plans they made a cpu with long range plans from the start. It was built to expand upon and add seperate cores from the beginning so it was not any surprise of what AMD did. They had it worked out that way from the start.
> To redesign the basic cpu would have taken them a long time that they didn't have and/or couldn't change because their long range plans were already in motion. It wasn't AMD's fault  that Intel came out with a better design. It was because of AMD that forced Intel to redesign their cpus from the MHZ blast attack to follow AMD's line of thinking in making them more efficient per clock cycle and slow things down.
> It was a drag for AMD that Intel has a lot more money and can spend more on their R&D with AMD already having done a lot of the ground work designs and so came out with the faster cpu's. AMD's goal was to make the true multi-core chip unline Intels tied together duo chip design. It's too bad AMD's design didn't work better but anyone can out do another if they spend enough to do it.
> Look at what Ford did to Ferrari with the F40. It cost a ludicrous sum to build it with a lot of trial and errors along the way but they had a goal to beat Ferrari at Le-mans at that 24 hour race and they did it for a year or two and after that dropped out.  In a way this is the way intel does it with AMD besides the nasty anti-competitive actions they did when AMD was putting out the best cpu's.  That was a real crime and they let Intel off to easy on that one.
> ...



I like your post, but I really don't see how it contradicts anything that I said. We really don't have anything to base Bulldozer's performance on other than speculation. 

My speculation leads me to believe that Bulldozer will be a nice chip. I could be wrong though.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> AMD did say 5 GHz on air, 6.6 GHz on LN2, then the rest on LHe?



Quoting chew*:



> I think that any info other than what I or AMD have personally offered which is not much if any can be discarded until further notice.
> 
> There are still peices to the puzzle missing that I can assure you 99.9% don't have yet regarding CPU rev and bios support and agesa.
> 
> ...



In the last part he is refering to OBR


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 15, 2011)

So, basically everything that I have been saying for the past 8 months or so still holds true.


Interesting. 












Not.


I mean really, I ain't got no chips, no insider info, nothing, and I seem to know WTF is going on, so I don't get all the bullshit hype. When OBR posted shit, I said to ignore him, then he said he was full of it himself, and was trolling, so I guess we know nothing more than we did a year ago, other than..well...that it overclocks well under excessive cooling.


Yippie.


----------



## bpgt64 (Sep 15, 2011)

What really makes no sense to me, is when Intel Fan boys cheer on poor performance of AMD products.  If you prefer Intel, AMD performing well only forces Intel to price more competitively(price wars and better prices for you), and vis versa.  Competition only benefits the consumer.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 15, 2011)

bpgt64 said:


> What really makes no sense to me, is when Intel Fan boys cheer on poor performance of AMD products.



That's reality, and ive heard AMD fanboys talk about how they think Intel chips are overpriced because they ''offer similar performance to AMD chips''.

Logic and reasoning tend not to be a strong suit for people who worship certain companies.


----------



## seronx (Sep 15, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> That's reality, and ive heard AMD fanboys talk about how they think Intel chips are overpriced because they ''offer similar performance to AMD chips''.
> 
> Logic and reasoning tend not to be a strong suit for people who worship certain companies.



Intel chips are overpriced because they offer a marginal performance increase...5% to 10% wow....$200 vs $140....ya that price is totally representative 

Everytime AMD releases a brand new chip it usually is beyond the marginal

Tick-Tock from Intel is a measure to keep away from the intimate tsunami called AMD







A8-3850 $140
i5 2500K $200

Set your ideologies straight


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 15, 2011)

seronx said:


> Intel chips are overpriced because they offer a marginal performance increase...5% to 10% wow....$200 vs $140....ya that price is totally representative
> 
> Everytime AMD releases a brand new chip it usually is beyond the marginal
> 
> ...



That benchmark is measuring on die GPU, so they tested the 2500K's GPU performance which definitely isn't as good as AMD's APU's. So you're overgeneralizing, i'm talking general CPU performance.

And the numbers speak for themselves:











Granted the AMD chips get frames that are more then playable, but again, performance warrants the higher cost with Intel to a lot of people.

Facts are facts, im running an AMD system and have a 990FX board and planning for BD, but that doesn't excuse what the numbers show.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

But then again the games ran on a GTX 280 at 1680 x 1050 no AA/AF and medium settings...I know this is to show how much a certain CPU can bottleneck a card but aren't really real world numbers.
I do no imply that SB has the same performance as AMD's chips they are in doubt faster, I would only like to see numbers with "real world" settings.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 15, 2011)

repman244 said:


> But then again the games ran on a GTX 280 at 1680 x 1050 no AA/AF and medium settings...I know this is to show how much a certain CPU can bottleneck a card but aren't really real world numbers.
> I do no imply that SB has the same performance as AMD's chips they are in doubt faster, I would only like to see numbers with "real world" settings.



True but that would sort of be missing the point in a CPU review for measuring CPU performance which is what i was trying to address.

Those benchmarks are still using real world software even if the system itself was built with CPU performance in mind. When you hit higher resolutions you start leaning on the GPU more so why do you want to see real world settings in a review meant to test certain parts?

If we were talking about testing games and other software such as benchmarks, then yes, real world settings and components would matter a ton.


----------



## seronx (Sep 15, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> That benchmark is measuring on die GPU, so they tested the 2500K's GPU performance which definitely isn't as good as AMD's APU's. So you're overgeneralizing, i'm talking general CPU performance.
> 
> And the numbers speak for themselves:
> 
> ...




970BE vs i5 2500K

Crysis Warhead
82.6 vs 91.6

Fallout 3
87.5 vs 90.3

Intel i5 2500K + $15 off
Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Tu...
$205.99

AMD Phenom II X4 970
AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition Deneb 3.5GHz 4 ...
$139.99

$205.99 vs $139.99

33% increase of performance should come with this price in your expectations

Crysis Warhead
10%

Fallout 3
4%

A8-3850
AMD A8-3850 Llano 2.9GHz 4MB L2 Cache Socket FM1 1...
$139.99

The distance between Llano and i5 is much smaller the only reason i5 2500K gets any faster(2%-8%) is because of the L3 Cache which Llano doesn't have


----------



## dumo (Sep 16, 2011)

Simple calculation based on Newegg price...

MIVE+2600K = $650
CH5 = $230
$420 difference which can be applied to FX8150 price ranges

The latest...http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-info-fans-!&p=4950616&viewfull=1#post4950616


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2011)

seronx said:


> 970BE vs i5 2500K
> 
> Crysis Warhead
> 82.6 vs 91.6
> ...



Sandy Bridge and AMD's Phenom II chips mainly separate in multi-tasking performance. Gaming wasn't an accurate representation of said performance difference.

Examples:











In most CPU oriented tasks Intel=better.


----------



## seronx (Sep 16, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Sandy Bridge and AMD's Phenom II chips mainly separate in multi-tasking performance. Gaming wasn't an accurate representation of said performance difference.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> ...



I would just say wait for AMD Zambezi...now you are getting to the point where you are hitting the architectural limit for AMD Deneb/Thuban

Those benchmarks heavily use the ALUs and AGUs which Phenom II can't use at the same time

Where in Video Games CPUs rarely require the max amount of ALU/AGUs(Notice most AMD chips are aimed at gamers)

So, if you do gimp, handbrake, mplayer, and 7-zip go right ahead

FX allows the ALUs/AGUs to be used at the sametime



dumo said:


> Simple calculation based on Newegg price...
> 
> MIVE+2600K = $650
> CH5 = $230
> ...



I'm going to ignore shipping costs on this one

ASRock 990FX Pro
ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional AM3+ AMD 990FX ... => $189.99
ASRock Z68 Pro
ASRock Z68 PROFESSIONAL GEN3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68 HD... => $234.99
i7 2600K
Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Tu... => $314.99
FX-8150 Pre-order from ShopBLT
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.cgi?action=thispage&thispage=01100300U031_BLA5134P.shtml => $266.28(Newegg will most likely be $259.99 or $279.99 <-- I'll use the bigger number)


$189.99+ $279.99 = $470

$234.99 + $314.99 = $549.98


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2011)

seronx said:


> I would just say wait for AMD Zambezi...now you are getting to the point where you are hitting the architectural limit for AMD Deneb/Thuban
> 
> Those benchmarks heavily use the ALUs and AGUs which Phenom II can't use at the same time
> 
> ...



Yes i agree.

AMD is finally doing a top down redesign, so i expect great things. Hence why i have my 990FX board already installed and ready for BD.

All i was really stating was where overall performance leaned, it doesn't matter to may people whether you get 100 frames or 90 frames in gaming hence overall values leans towards AMD, but heavy multi-threaded software is where the difference comes in.

It just depends what you need really.


----------



## LordJummy (Sep 16, 2011)

A lot of this back and forth isn't really BD related at all.

To Intel fanboys: Intel is great, AMD fanboys will never agree with you.
To AMD fanboys: AMD is great, Intel fanboys will never agree with you.

To Everyone else: Intel & AMD are great. Let them duke it out and pick the best solution for yourself.


----------



## treehouse (Sep 16, 2011)

*AMD Benches FX-Series Bulldozer Against Intel CPUs*

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Benches-FX-Series-Bulldozer-Against-Intel-CPUs-221888.shtml


----------



## seronx (Sep 16, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> A lot of this back and forth isn't really BD related at all.
> 
> To Intel fanboys: Intel is great, AMD fanboys will never agree with you.
> To AMD fanboys: AMD is great, Intel fanboys will never agree with you.
> ...



To be politically correct say "Enthusiast"



treehouse said:


> http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Benches-FX-Series-Bulldozer-Against-Intel-CPUs-221888.shtml



Handbrake... It uses Codecs so it depends what version they used

Gaming benchmark at 2560x1600 is GPU scaling

I read down to up



> The AMD FX processor with eight cores perform this function with an average of 223 frames per second, the i5 with four cores came in at 188 fps.



Then



> Since both tests are presumably carefully chosen for the new platform to put in a good light, we can based on these numbers no conclusions.



Ya, I wouldn't really trust these results till I know the codec


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> A lot of this back and forth isn't really BD related at all.
> 
> To Intel fanboys: Intel is great, AMD fanboys will never agree with you.
> To AMD fanboys: AMD is great, Intel fanboys will never agree with you.
> ...



Real talk true story. (T.I.)


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 16, 2011)

bpgt64 said:


> What really makes no sense to me, is when Intel Fan boys cheer on poor performance of AMD products.  If you prefer Intel, AMD performing well only forces Intel to price more competitively(price wars and better prices for you), and vis versa.  Competition only benefits the consumer.




100% truth.  But like with sports teams,  ford vs chevy vs doge trucks, pc vs mac etc etc people get passionate about what they care about.  Dosent excuse the name calling though. Me personally I can't loose. I run both companies product.  I perfer intel cpus.  Total fanboy on amd gpus....  total killer machine!


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> 100% truth.  But like with sports teams,  ford vs chevy vs doge trucks, pc vs mac etc etc people get passionate about what they care about.  Dosent excuse the name calling though. Me personally I can't loose. I run booth companies product.  I perfer intel cpus.  Total fanboy on amd gpus....  total killer machine!



People preferring one companies products over another generally isn't why most people hate fanboys, it's those that blindly chose one or the other based on things with no merit.

I run whatever i can afford and will give me the best results for my tasks (mainly gaming) and that currently is AMD.

This is offtopic though, sorry. Then again is there even any new news to talk about for BD? lol, they've been fairly quiet.


----------



## trickson (Sep 16, 2011)

I wonder if this BD is going to be released like there Phenom was . We heard VERY little about them up till there release and we all know just how well they performed . I'm Just sayin . I do not like all this silence on the part of AMD about a chip that should be very powerful and supper kick ass ! Kind of makes me wounder  .


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 16, 2011)

trickson said:


> I wonder if this BD is going to be released like there Phenom was . We heard VERY little about them up till there release and we all know just how well they performed . I'm Just sayin . I do not like all this silence on the part of AMD about a chip that should be very powerful and supper kick ass ! Kind of makes me wounder  .



Incorrect. The Phenom 1 was hyped up like crazy. The Phenom 2 dropped silently and/is a great CPU.


----------



## trickson (Sep 16, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Incorrect. The Phenom 1 was hyped up like crazy. The Phenom 2 dropped silently and/is a great CPU.



Yeah that is what I meant .. LOL . At any rate this seems a bit like that to me . Not a lot of HYPE other than the WR OC and that is not much to go on . I have lots of cash now and I am going to build a new system soon But till I know for sure what the BD can really do it is hard for me to make a informed purchase as of yet and I am also looking at the Ivy bridge as well Nothing at all on that other than 3d transistors ( This has my E-peen all hard )  .


----------



## seronx (Sep 16, 2011)

Copy and Paste



			
				Multi-Core Processors said:
			
		

> AMD Family 15h processors have multiple compute units, each containing its own L2 cache and two
> cores. The cores share their compute unit’s L2 cache. Each core incorporates the complete x86
> instruction set logic and L1 data cache. Compute units share the processor’s L3 cache and
> Northbridge.





			
				Internal Instruction Formats said:
			
		

> AMD Family 15h processors perform four types of primitive operations:
> • Integer (arithmetic or logic)
> • Floating-point (arithmetic)
> • Load
> ...





Comparing | AMD64 instructions | Macro-ops | Micro-ops
Complexity | Complex | Average | Simple
 | A single instruction may specify one or more of each of the following operations: | A single macro-op may specify—at most—one integer or floating-point operation and one of the following operations: | A single micro-op specifies only one of the following primitive operations:
 |  • Integer or floating-point | • Load | • Integer or floating-point
 |  • Load | • Store | • Load
 |  • Store | • Load and store to the same address | • Store
Encoded length | Variable (instructions are different lengths) | Fixed (all macro-ops are the same length) | Fixed (all micro-ops are the same length)
Regularized instruction fields | No (field locations and definitions vary among instructions) | Yes (field locations and definitions are the same for all macro-ops) | Yes (field locations and definitions are the same for all micro-ops)


Instruction Type | Description
FastPath Single | Decodes directly into one macro-op in microprocessor hardware.
FastPath Double | Decodes directly into two macro-ops in microprocessor hardware.
Microcode | Decodes into one or more (usually three or more) macro-ops using the on-chip microcode-engine ROM (MROM).


			
				AMD Instruction Set Enhancements said:
			
		

> The AMD Family 15h processor has been enhanced with the following new instructions:
> • XOP and AVX support—Extended Advanced Vector Extensions provide enhanced instruction
> encodings and non-destructive operands with an extended set of 128-bit (XMM) and 256-bit
> (YMM) media registers
> ...





			
				Floating-Point Improvements said:
			
		

> AMD Family 15h processors add support for 128-bit floating-point execution units. As a result, the
> throughput of both single-precision and double-precision floating-point SIMD vector operations has
> improved by 2X over the previous generation of AMD processors.
> Users may notice differences in the results of programs when using the fused multiply and add
> ...





			
				Instruction Fetching Improvements said:
			
		

> While previous AMD64 processors had a single 32-byte fetch window, AMD Family 15h processors
> have two 32-byte fetch windows, from which four μops can be selected. These fetch windows, when
> combined with the 128-bit floating-point execution unit, allow the processor to sustain a
> fetch/dispatch/retire sequence of four instructions per cycle. Most instructions decode to a single μop,
> ...





			
				Instruction Decode and Floating-Point Pipe Improvements said:
			
		

> Several integer and floating-point instructions have improved latencies and decode types on
> AMD Family 15h processors. Furthermore, the FPU pipes utilized by several floating-point
> instructions have changed. These changes can influence instruction choice and scheduling for
> compilers and hand-written assembly code.





			
				Notable Performance Improvements said:
			
		

> Several enhancements to the AMD64 architecture have resulted in significant performance
> improvements in AMD Family 15h processors, including:
> • Improved performance of shuffle instructions
> • Improved data transfer between floating-point registers and general purpose registers
> ...





			
				Improved Bandwidth Decode Type for Shuffle Instructions said:
			
		

> The floating-point logic in AMD Family 15h processors uses three separate execution positions or
> pipes called FADD, FMUL and FSTORE. This is illustrated in Figure 1 on page 32 in Appendix A.
> Current AMD Family 15h processors support two SIMD logical/shuffle units, one in the FMUL pipe
> and another in the FADD pipe, while previous AMD64 processors have only one SIMD
> ...





			
				Floating-Point Register-to-Register Moves said:
			
		

> On previous AMD processors, floating-point register-to-register moves could only go through the
> FADD and FMUL pipes. On AMD Family 15h processors, floating-point register-to-register moves
> can also go through the FSTORE pipe, thereby improving overall throughput.





			
				Large Page Support said:
			
		

> AMD Family 15h processors now have better large page support, having incorporated new 1GB
> paging and 2MB and 4KB paging improvements.
> The L1 data TLB and L2 data TLB now support 1GB pages, a benefit to applications making large
> data-set random accesses.
> ...





			
				Key Features said:
			
		

> AMD Family 15h processors include many features designed to improve software performance. The
> internal design, or microarchitecture, of these processors provides the following key features:
> • Up to 8 Compute Units (CUs) with 2 cores per CU
> • Integrated DDR3 memory controller (two on some models) with memory prefetcher
> ...





			
				Microarchitecture of AMD Family 15h Processors said:
			
		

> AMD Family 15h processors implement the AMD64 instruction set by means of macro-ops (the
> primary units of work managed by the processor) and micro-ops (the primitive operations executed in
> the processor's execution units). These are simple fixed-length operations designed to include direct
> support for AMD64 instructions and adhere to the high-performance principles of fixed-length
> ...





			
				Superscalar Processor said:
			
		

> The AMD Family 15h processor is an aggressive, out-of-order, superscalarprocessor. It can fetch,
> decode, and issue up to four instructions per cycle using decoupled fetch and branch prediction units
> and three independent instruction schedulers, consisting of two integer schedulers and one floatingpoint
> scheduler.
> ...





			
				L1 Instruction Cache said:
			
		

> The out-of-order execution engine of AMD Family 15h processors contains a 64-Kbyte, 2-way setassociative
> L1 instruction cache. Each line in this cache is 64 bytes long. However, only 32 bytes are
> fetched in every cycle. Functions associated with the L1 instruction cache are instruction loads,
> instruction prefetching, instruction predecoding, and branch prediction. Requests that miss in the L1
> ...





			
				L1 Data Cache said:
			
		

> The AMD Family 15h processor contains a 16-Kbyte, 4-way predicted L1 data cache with two 128-
> bit ports. This is a write-through cache that supports up to two 128 Byte loads per cycle. It is divided
> into 16 banks, each 16 bytes wide. In addition, the L1 cache is protected from single bit errors through
> the use of parity. There is a hardware prefetcher that brings data into the L1 data cache to avoid
> ...





			
				L2 Cache said:
			
		

> The AMD Family 15h processor has one shared L2 cache per compute unit. This full-speed on-die L2
> cache is mostly inclusive relative to the L1 cache. The L2 is a write-through cache. Every time a store
> is performed in a core, that address is written into both the L1 data cache of the core the store belongs
> to and the L2 cache (which is shared between the two cores). The L2 cache has an 18-20 cycle load to
> use latency.





			
				L3 Cache said:
			
		

> The AMD Family 15h processor supports a maximum of 8MB of L3 cache per die, distributed among
> four L3 sub-caches which can each be up to 2MB in size. The L3 cache is considered a non-inclusive
> victim cache architecture optimized for multi-core AMD processors. Only L2 evictions cause
> allocations into the L3 cache. Requests that hit in the L3 cache can either leave the data in the L3
> ...





			
				Branch-Prediction said:
			
		

> To predict and accelerate branches, AMD Family 15h processors employ a combination of nextaddress
> logic, a 2-level branch target buffer (BTB) for branch identification and direct target
> prediction, a return address stack used for predicting return addresses, an indirect target predictor for
> predicting indirect jump and call addresses, a hybrid branch predictor for predicting conditional
> ...





			
				Instruction Fetch and Decode said:
			
		

> AMD Family 15h processors can theoretically fetch 32B of instructions per cycle and send these
> instructions to the Decode Unit (DE) in 16B windows through the 16-entry (per-thread) Instruction
> Byte Buffer (IBB). The Decode Unit can only scan two of these 16B windows in a given cycle for up
> to four instructions. If four instructions partially or wholly exist in more than two of these windows,
> ...





			
				Integer Execution said:
			
		

> The integer execution unit for the AMD Family 15h processor consists of two components:
> • the integer datapath
> • the instruction scheduler and retirement control
> These two components are responsible for all integer execution (including address generation) as well
> ...





			
				Translation-Lookaside Buffer said:
			
		

> A translation-lookaside buffer (TLB) holds the most-recently-used page mapping information. It
> assists and accelerates the translation of virtual addresses to physical addresses.
> The AMD Family 15h processors utilize a two-level TLB structure.





			
				L1 Instruction TLB Specifications said:
			
		

> The AMD Family 15h processor contains a fully-associative L1 instruction TLB with 48 4-Kbyte
> page entries and 24 2-Mbyte or 1-Gbyte page entries. 4-Mbyte pages require two 2-Mbyte entries;
> thus, the number of entries available for 4-Mbyte pages is one half the number of 2-Mbyte page
> entries.





			
				L1 Data TLB Specifications said:
			
		

> The AMD Family 15h processor contains a fully-associative L1 data TLB with 32 entries for 4-
> Kbyte, 2-Mbyte, and 1-Gbyte pages. 4-Mbyte pages require two 2-Mbyte entries; thus, the number of
> entries available for 4-Mbyte pages is one half the number of 2-Mbyte page entries.





			
				L2 Instruction TLB Specifications said:
			
		

> The AMD Family 15 processor contains a 4-way set-associative L2 instruction TLB with 512 4-
> Kbyte page entries.





			
				L2 Data TLB Specifications said:
			
		

> The AMD Family 15h processor contains an L2 data TLB and page walk cache (PWC) with 1024 4-
> Kbyte, 2-Mbyte or 1-Gbyte page entries (8-way set-associative). 4-Mbyte pages require two 2-Mbyte
> entries; thus, the number of entries available for 4-Mbyte pages is one half the number of 2-Mbyte
> page entries.





			
				Integer Unit said:
			
		

> The integer unit consists of two components, the integer scheduler, which feeds the integer execution
> pipes, and the integer execution unit, which carries out several types of operations discussed below.
> The integer unit is duplicated for each thread pair.





			
				Integer Scheduler said:
			
		

> The scheduler can receive and schedule up to four micro-ops (μops) in a dispatch group per cycle.
> The scheduler tracks operand availability and dependency information as part of its task of issuing
> μops to be executed. It also assures that older μops which have been waiting for operands are
> executed in a timely manner. The scheduler also manages register mapping and renaming.


*Might be an error the four micro-ops are actually four marco-ops because in the next section it says "Macro-ops are broken down into micro-ops in the schedulers."



			
				Integer Execution Unit said:
			
		

> There are four integer execution units per core. Two units which handle all arithmetic, logical and
> shift operations (EX). And two which handle address generation and simple ALU operations
> (AGLU). This makes an Integer Cluster. There is two such clusters per compute unit.
> 
> ...





			
				Floating-Point Unit said:
			
		

> The AMD Family 15h processor floating point unit (FPU) was designed to provide four times the raw
> FADD and FMUL bandwidth as the original AMD Opteron and Athlon 64 processors. It achieves this
> by means of two 128-bit fused multiply-accumulate (FMAC) units which are supported by a 128-bit
> high-bandwidth load-store system. The FPU is a coprocessor model that is shared between the two
> ...


*Might be another error when micro ops are said but they mean macro ops


			
				Load-Store Unit said:
			
		

> The AMD family 15h processor load-store (LS) unit handles data accesses. There are two LS units
> per compute unit, or one per core. The LS unit supports two 128-bit loads/cycles and one 128-bit
> store/cycle. There is a 24 entry store queue. This queue buffers stored data until it can be written to
> the data cache. The load queue has 40 entries and holds load operations until after the load has been
> ...





Adding more with edits

I hate this Table tool!!!

Also, there might be errors in this some lines are copy and pasted(This has been out since April)
I am postin this here because this is a "Bulldozer" information thread


----------



## Zen_ (Sep 16, 2011)

bpgt64 said:


> What really makes no sense to me, is when Intel Fan boys cheer on poor performance of AMD products.  If you prefer Intel, AMD performing well only forces Intel to price more competitively(price wars and better prices for you), and vis versa.  Competition only benefits the consumer.



No...no...you don't get it! The world will be a better place when we only have one choice.


----------



## JF-AMD (Sep 16, 2011)

bpgt64 said:


> What really makes no sense to me, is when Intel Fan boys cheer on poor performance of AMD products.  If you prefer Intel, AMD performing well only forces Intel to price more competitively(price wars and better prices for you), and vis versa.  Competition only benefits the consumer.



Exactly. I actually have this launch prediction:

AMD will release the chip
AMD will provide benchmarks
Others will run benchmarks
Everyone will have their own biased view of the processor
Fanboys will always fight each other, they will never agree
Six months from now (and beyond) the fighting will still go on because, dammit, some people just like to fight

I am a huge Fox Racing Shocks guy, but I love it when Rock Shox has new products out because that just makes the next year's Fox products better.




Damn_Smooth said:


> I like your post, but I really don't see how it contradicts anything that I said. We really don't have anything to base Bulldozer's performance on other than speculation.
> 
> My speculation leads me to believe that Bulldozer will be a nice chip. I could be wrong though.



I think it will be just fine.  Forum wars will continue no matter what the outcome is.




LordJummy said:


> A lot of this back and forth isn't really BD related at all.
> 
> To Intel fanboys: Intel is great, AMD fanboys will never agree with you.
> To AMD fanboys: AMD is great, Intel fanboys will never agree with you.
> ...



+1



CDdude55 said:


> People preferring one companies products over another generally isn't why most people hate fanboys, it's those that blindly chose one or the other based on things with no merit.
> 
> I run whatever i can afford and will give me the best results for my tasks (mainly gaming) and that currently is AMD.
> 
> This is offtopic though, sorry. Then again is there even any new news to talk about for BD? lol, they've been fairly quiet.



+1


----------



## repman244 (Sep 16, 2011)

Well here is some info from chew* about BD working on Crosshair IV (AM3 MB), which I know many people were saying it's impossible:



> Will it work? Yes
> 
> The right question is will it be optimal? No.



So I guess turbo and power saving features probably will not work (my guess is anything power delivery related). 
Thicker pins eh?

And I strongly believe 19th is the day we get to see the numbers.


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 16, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Well here is some info from chew* about BD working on Crosshair IV (AM3 MB), which I know many people were saying it's impossible:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



really hope your right! been dying to see something official, benches really dont bother me too much cause you can make them say whatever you want, especially before the public gets their hands on them. what i DO want to know is release date and official price


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 16, 2011)

repman244 said:


> And I strongly believe 19th is the day we get to see the numbers.



Well, I have no CPU here now, and the 19th is Monday. You'd think AMD would want a site as big as TPU to have a CPU for launch day, no?




No way I'm doing a review over the weekend...

So either there's 3 options:

A.: Possibly other staff here has one(very possible).

B.: Bulldozer is NOT launching on Monday.

C.: AMD marketing has failed.


I'm leaning towards "C".  


All i really know is it won't be me doing a launch review.








BTW, this thread is averaging 6000 views per week so far.


----------



## seronx (Sep 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> A.: Possibly other staff here has one(very possible).
> 
> B.: Bulldozer is NOT launching on Monday.
> 
> ...



A.: A possibility

B. AMD CPUs don't launch on Mondays or Fridays on AVG, they usually launch Tuesday thru Thursday
But next week is the anniversary of the K8 FXs

C. AMD Marketing has failed.
I doubt this one


----------



## erocker (Sep 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Well, I have no CPU here now, and the 19th is Monday. You'd think AMD would want a site as big as TPU to have a CPU for launch day, no?



Do we currently have a CPU reviewer?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> Do we currently have a CPU reviewer?



Uh...I am not sure, TBH. I thought that was Omega? I would have stepped up if we didn't..I'm been bugging JF-AMD for CPUs long enough, no?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> Do we currently have a CPU reviewer?



Ill review it! I have no idea what I'm doing and the benches will be illegible with porn charts and the conclusion will be reminiscent of a Dr. Seuss book.........but by g-d Ill review it for the community!


----------



## erocker (Sep 16, 2011)

I would do it.. but only if the MailMan gets my position as Senior Moderator. Then again I don't want to be the first person to suffer from dissappointment with a CPU that had such high hopes.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> I would do it.. but only if the MailMan gets my position as Senior Moderator.



 


pLEASE....no?






erocker said:


> Then again I don't want to be the first person to suffer from dissappointment with a CPU that had such high hopes.



If ya needed a board, too, i'd send one!  you gotta pay shipping though! 





i tell ya what, why don't we ban AMD talk from the forum until they send a sample to ya?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> I would do it.. but only if the MailMan gets my position as Senior Moderator. Then again I don't want to be the first person to suffer from dissappointment with a CPU that had such high hopes.



Yeah but see if I review it the disappointment will be so great with the review people wont even know it was for a CPU. People will just think "WTF did I just read?!"


----------



## seronx (Sep 16, 2011)

I would review it and skew the results by adding flags that would make it use FMA in most open source benchmarks but then again we are talking about Windows so you will have to deal with half bandwidth


----------



## erocker (Sep 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> If ya needed a board, too, i'd send one!  you gotta pay shipping though!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because people would just constantly make threads about it and we'd get sick of removing them and give up anyways. I already have a CHV  



seronx said:


> I would review it and skew the results by adding flags that would make it use FMA in most open source benchmarks but then again we are talking about Windows so you will have to deal with half bandwidth



Indeed. Because that would totally relate to 99% of AMD's customers! I'm kidding. I'd like to take my horse to a pig show and call it the most awesome pig evar.

Bah, I'm done here. BD talk turns my brains into jello and I post stupid things.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> Because people would just constantly make threads about it and we'd get sick of removing them and give up anyways. I already have a CHV
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Because that would totally relate to 99% of AMD's customers! I'm kidding. I'd like to take my horse to a pig show and call it the most awesome pig evar.



You gotta pig that looks like a horse?! THATS AWESOME!


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> Because people would just constantly make threads about it and we'd get sick of removing them and give up anyways. I already have a CHV



My one-armed self can only do so many reviews, and besides, I like binning retail parts for poop to do motherboard reviews with anyway. I like to show the worst-possible result.

I don't really want the review, but damn if I don't want all the crap and bickering to stop. If I gots to do a review over the weekend, then so be it. 


OFF Topic:

We gotta get some gaming in tonight, sir. Was busy last firday, but not today!  Well, I do got a movie to take the kids to, but afterwords...



TheMailMan78 said:


> You gotta pig that looks like a horse?! THATS AWESOME!



No, he has a horse, and it IS amazing.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2011)

Well i have a 990FX board and no other worldly commitments, so.......ya.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> My one-armed self can only do so many reviews, and besides, I like binning retail parts for poop to do motherboard reviews with anyway. I like to show the worst-possible result.
> 
> I don't really want the review, but damn if I don't want all the crap and bickering to stop. If I gots to do a review over the weekend, then so be it.
> 
> ...



I might be on tonight. Dunno yet.


----------



## seronx (Sep 16, 2011)

Questions...

Who is getting the CPU?

Who is going to review the CPU?

Who is getting the motherboards?

Who is going to review all the motherboards with that CPU?

If there are going to be any reviews from techpowerup xD


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 16, 2011)

seronx said:


> A.: A possibility
> 
> B. AMD CPUs don't launch on Mondays or Fridays on AVG, they usually launch Tuesday thru Thursday
> But next week is the anniversary of the K8 FXs
> ...



b.   Gets. My vote.  Seems like  "marketing"  logic and the world record is the cherry on top


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2011)

seronx said:


> Questions...
> 
> Who is getting the CPU?
> 
> ...



Didn't we have a CPU reviewer in the past? i think it was Wiz who did those reviews. Why are we switching people around?

Just remembered it was Omega that did a good amount of the CPU reviews, he dead?


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 16, 2011)

seronx said:


> Questions...
> 
> Who is getting the CPU?


I no haz answers



> Who is going to review the CPU?



See above



> Who is getting the motherboards?



Me



> Who is going to review all the motherboards with that CPU?



I will review as many boards as I can with *A* Bulldozer chip, whether I get it from AMD or not. Just don't forget I have but one working arm.



> If there are going to be any reviews from techpowerup xD



Yes, I am sure there will be reviews with Bulldozer at some point. I will reviews board with one for sure, 100%, but to be completely honest, all of the TPU reviewers are specialists, and are quite busy, so we don't exactly always have time to talk to each other about what is in the works.

Just suffice it to say that as a site, we WILL bring Bulldozer coverage, ASAP. Might be me, might not, but there is no way that it would be acceptable if we didn't.

You guys want reviews, right?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 16, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah but see if I review it the disappointment will be so great with the review people wont even know it was for a CPU. People will just think "WTF did I just read?!"



Then why do you need the CPU, I'm dying to read your review and I don't care if it mentions any hardware at all.




cadaveca said:


> I will review as many boards as I can with *A* Bulldozer chip, whether I get it from AMD or not. Just don't forget I have but one working arm.



What happened to your arm?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 16, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Then why do you need the CPU, I'm dying to read your review and I don't care if it mentions any hardware at all.



I need a Bulldozer to shovel the amount of Bulls#!t that would be in a Mailman review.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 16, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> What happened to your arm?



Severely dislocated, getting shoulder blade and upper arm bone replaced with metal. Recurring injury, just finally at the point where arm is screwed.

you can see how it hangs now, hurts A LOT 24/7:






Anyway...Let's get back on topic. Trying to ignore it


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2011)

All the CPU reviews have been done by Omega:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/search.php?searchid=14880647

Why isn't he doing the reviews?, im still wondering


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Severely dislocated, getting shoulder blade and upper arm bone replaced with metal. Recurring injury, just finally at the point where arm is screwed.
> 
> you can see how it hangs now, hurts A LOT 24/7:
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110913/arm.jpg



Shit man, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope the surgery goes good and that you have a quick recovery.

Edit: I didn't see your ninja edit, so I'll drop it now.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 16, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Edit: I didn't see your ninja edit, so I'll drop it now.




No worries, man. I'm all about being open and honest, so you had a question, and I'm more than glad to answer.

It might help put my comments in perspective, too. Even IF I was TPU's CPU reviewer, I'd have issues getting a CPU review done on time right now considering my other workload.


It's all rather tongue-in-cheek; I'm just as eager as you guys are to see some results, and have no idea what's coming. It's pretty darn exciting, to be honest.


----------



## erocker (Sep 16, 2011)

Tomorrow.. tune in: http://www.overclock.net/benchmarki...-editor-bulldozer-benchoff-win-bulldozer.html


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 16, 2011)

FAIL. 

Can you add that to W1zz's poll?


----------



## erocker (Sep 16, 2011)

Lol, I don't think it's even tomorrow.  He says Saturday. Later on in the thread it was asked if it was this Saturday and he wouldn't say. Fail indeed.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 16, 2011)

Glad to see you saw that too. 


"A Saturday".




We could done the same thing, you, me and W1zz woulda been just as global.


----------



## seronx (Sep 16, 2011)

Date TBA: On A Saturday 12pm eastern, 9am Pacific, 5pm GMT

Hardware:

    AMD FX8150 x8 processor

    ASUS Crosshair V Formula

Benchmarks:

    OCN's System Interrogator max CPU frequency

    wPrime 32M

    SuperPi 1M


----------



## NAVI_Z (Sep 16, 2011)

who ever decides to do the reviews and benchies' i'll be anxiously awaiting.

got the dough to drop on a cpu,gou,& a mobo. waiting to c if Bulldozer lives up to all the 

HYPE.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 16, 2011)

I know it's not really 100% reliable info:



> ETA 09-22-2011



http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop...01100300U031_BLA5134P.shtml&order_id=!ORDERID!


----------



## Super XP (Sep 16, 2011)

Can I plug one of these  Bulldozers in my AM2+?
http://www.rockanddirt.com/search?m...erid=1748&make=CATERPILLAR&model=D5&year=1976


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 16, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Can I plug one of these  Bulldozers in my AM2+?
> http://www.rockanddirt.com/search?m...erid=1748&make=CATERPILLAR&model=D5&year=1976


Fo Sure lol!!!!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 17, 2011)

Im not worried about the launch date, it will be out when its out, just cant wait for people here to do their own reviews of the units, My Bros machine will have a Upper Model n eventually maxed out memory for Win 7 if they release 8 GB DDR3 Modules that is.


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 17, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Im not worried about the launch date, it will be out when its out, just cant wait for people here to do their own reviews of the units, My Bros machine will have a Upper Model n eventually maxed out memory for Win 7 if they release 8 GB DDR3 Modules that is.


just get the mop and pail out to mop up the INTEL FAG Opps FAN Boys tears up before they slip and fall on there own tears when BullDozer stomps the 2600K... Ok K lol


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 17, 2011)

to be honest with you i dont care if they fastest thing or not out, cuz its a new design anyway compared to what Phenom was.

My Line of work we use AMDs cuz of the pricing n they run very well too.

My Bros Machine I built recently is effin fast


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 17, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> to be honest with you i dont care if they fastest thing or not out, cuz its a new design anyway compared to what Phenom was.
> 
> My Line of work we use AMDs cuz of the pricing n they run very well too.
> 
> My Bros Machine I built recently is effin fast


And I bet ya it's an AMD rig!!!!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 17, 2011)

Specs:

ASRock 970 Extreme 4
AMD PHII X2 BE 555 (Unlocked to X4 B55/955 BE) Stock Cooler
8 Gigs GSKILL Ripjaws 1600MHz 8-8-8-24 1.5V DDR3
Sapphire Radeon 6770 1GB
Gen 12 Seagate HD 500 Gigs
2X Samsung DVD Burners
Antec Green/Eco 650W PSU
Thermaltake V9 Black X VM400M Series Case (Docking station x2- makes the top 5.25 Bay useless tho)
Win 7 HP 64bit (8 Gigs ram)

19" Hyundai Monitor at 1440x900 (need to get him DVI cable eventually)

he def needed a new build considering he was on a Asus P4S8x with a crappy NV card and 2 gigs ram with XP MCE 2005 SP3, Win 7 detected the old HD from the other machine is on its way out, might DFT it or something.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 17, 2011)

What we all want in my opinion is healthy competition and no more price fixing of the past. Today you can build an awesome PC system on the cheap and still game like there was no tomorrow. 
I know for a fact Bulldozer needs more tweaking because it is a complex design. That said, if we can see the rumoured 50% increase in performance clock for clock vs. Phenom II, that would be a massive win for AMD and some super much needed competition. 

Who want's a 8-Core (4 Module) Bulldozer for under $325? I do


----------



## LordJummy (Sep 17, 2011)

Why do the non BD related posts continue to clog up this thread? Go make a Phenom II thread or an "AMD is wonderful" thread. I check in here every once in a while looking for any real updates on BD and all I see is people talking about how AMD is "good enough for me!".


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 17, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> just get the mop and pail out to mop up the INTEL FAG Opps FAN Boys tears up before they slip and fall on there own tears when BullDozer stomps the 2600K... Ok K lol



 wow.... what a wonderful dream.......now somebody please wake this guy up before he gets drool all over the forum


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 17, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Why do the non BD related posts continue to clog up this thread? Go make a Phenom II thread or an "AMD is wonderful" thread. I check in here every once in a while looking for any real updates on BD and all I see is people talking about how AMD is "good enough for me!".



well if you dont like it u dont have to stay here


----------



## Zen_ (Sep 17, 2011)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-info-fans-!&p=4950616&viewfull=1#post4950616

6 GHz phase change, 6.8 GHz dry ice!


----------



## LordJummy (Sep 17, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> well if you dont like it u dont have to stay here



That post was not directed at any one person, but it was to try and point out that the conversation has gotten off topic again.

I'm not trying to start a fight with you. I just want to know more about BD, period.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 17, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> That post was not directed at any one person, but it was to try and point out that the conversation has gotten off topic again.
> 
> I'm not trying to start a fight with you. I just want to know more about BD, period.



I know you werent tryin to start a fight with anyone but im just sayin if u dont like something u can either continue posting or not, but for some info Zen did post some OC numbers and for 8 cores at 6.0GHz is pretty solid.

I would say Komodo (Gen 2 Bulldozer "Enhanced" FM2 Socket) will be a different story for Numbers etc. I just know that My Bros machine will eventually have the fastest Zambezi (Gen 1 Bulldozer) available with Maxed memory once 8 gig Modules come out.


----------



## sneekypeet (Sep 17, 2011)

Let's all be good and play nice so we don't have to close this....mmmmkay?


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 17, 2011)

i think it would be nice if the OP of this thread would update the original post on page one with links to videos / information and current "rumor mill" activity so that we can discuss but people like LordJummy who click on this thread expecting info can easily get it  just my .02


----------



## Goodman (Sep 17, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> i think it would be nice if the OP of this thread would update the original post on page one with links to videos / information and current "rumor mill" activity so that we can discuss but people like LordJummy who click on this thread expecting info can easily get it  just my .02



I think so too


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 17, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Specs:
> 
> ASRock 970 Extreme 4
> AMD PHII X2 BE 555 (Unlocked to X4 B55/955 BE) Stock Cooler
> ...



AMDs are more suited for applications. they seem to be faster when it comes to working with apps. also AMDs dont hang/crash. they feel a lot snappier IMO.
thats why i always prefer intels junk for only gaming and AMD for everything else.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 17, 2011)

Now that is impressive...

*AMD pushes FX-8150 to 8.429GHz*
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/24056-amd-pushes-fx-8150-to-8429ghz


----------



## Goodman (Sep 17, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Now that is impressive...
> 
> *AMD pushes FX-8150 to 8.429GHz*
> http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/24056-amd-pushes-fx-8150-to-8429ghz



Man! when are you people understand that drugs slow you down...  

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152008


----------



## LordJummy (Sep 17, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> i think it would be nice if the OP of this thread would update the original post on page one with links to videos / information and current "rumor mill" activity so that we can discuss but people like LordJummy who click on this thread expecting info can easily get it  just my .02



The main problem is not rumors or FUD - it's people going on and on about completely unrelated stuff. I just think the mods are finally just saying "fuck it" because people will keep making BD threads filled with nonsense regardless. I totally understand why, too.

Any new real information as to the general performance of the flagship FX chip? I'm trying to decide if I am going to order some AMD parts to build a BD rig to take over as my eyefinity machine for gaming, or if I want to build a 2600k rig instead.

Any idea on how crossfire scaling will be with 2-3 cards on BD and the 990 chipset? Versus first and second gen i7's? (ie: i7 970 & i7 2600K) Is the memory bandwidth going to be improved? Are they going to release some updated platform after BD's launch?

I just don't know if there's any point to replacing my i7 970 rig or not. I can't find any real performance figures. Just some obscure benchmarks that are uncertain...


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 17, 2011)

Quick question.

The 8 core bulldozer, obviously its 4 modules with two cores per module. 

But is AMD marketing it as an 8 core or a 4 core processor

or a 4 core processor with 8 hardware threads.


----------



## bucketface (Sep 17, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> I just don't know if there's any point to replacing my i7 970 rig or not. I can't find any real performance figures. Just some obscure benchmarks that are uncertain...



you have an i7 970? no need to upgrade until at least ivy bridge-E (or what ever the enthusiast part is called) i doubt you'd see any meaningful performance gains over what you have until, at the very least 2013.


----------



## Wyverex (Sep 17, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Quick question.
> 
> The 8 core bulldozer, obviously its 4 modules with two cores per module.
> 
> ...


AMD has stated on many occasions that they will only talk about cores, and they will call it an eight-core CPU


----------



## Super XP (Sep 17, 2011)

*AMD Benchmarks the AMD FX Bulldozer - Awesome Performer*



> posted on: Sat, 09/17/2011 - 02:29
> 
> In a mini press event during this week’s IDF, AMD ran two live tests to benchmark and compare its soon-to-be-released FX-series Bulldozer CPU against Intel’s current offering of Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs.
> 
> ...



*LINK:*
http://www.megagames.com/news/amd-benchmarks-bulldozer-against-intel’s-core-i5-and-i7


----------



## Goodman (Sep 17, 2011)

Super XP said:


> *LINK:*
> http://www.megagames.com/news/amd-benchmarks-bulldozer-against-intel’s-core-i5-and-i7



Second trikes... let you guess where & when...

Must be good drugs you got there my friend...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 17, 2011)

The updated platform youre referring to is Komodo (Skt FM2/ Second Gen Bulldozer/Bulldozer Enhanced) which will replace Zambezi (AM3+) in 2012. I wouldnt be surprised if certain Komodo Core Bulldozers make it on AM3+




LordJummy said:


> The main problem is not rumors or FUD - it's people going on and on about completely unrelated stuff. I just think the mods are finally just saying "fuck it" because people will keep making BD threads filled with nonsense regardless. I totally understand why, too.
> 
> Any new real information as to the general performance of the flagship FX chip? I'm trying to decide if I am going to order some AMD parts to build a BD rig to take over as my eyefinity machine for gaming, or if I want to build a 2600k rig instead.
> 
> ...


----------



## erocker (Sep 17, 2011)

> The Bulldozer processor achieved the task with an average of 223 frames per second, while the Core i5 machine achieved an average of 188 fps.



Not very good considering it's 8 core vs. 4 core.



> The game ran at an average frame rate of 80.9 fps on the Intel-powered machine and 82.8 fps on the AMD FX-powered one.



A 2500K will beat both of those.

So it looks like AMD's pricing scheme is correct in terms of performance with its competition.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Sep 17, 2011)

erocker said:


> So it looks like AMD's pricing scheme is correct in terms of performance with its competition.



And that is all I care about. A good priced chip and a good priced system. I've been holding off on a new build for 2 months now, and go dammit I just want to have a new system!


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 17, 2011)

Super XP said:


> *LINK:*
> http://www.megagames.com/news/amd-benchmarks-bulldozer-against-intel’s-core-i5-and-i7



Welcome to 5 pages ago, same thread:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2395902&postcount=377







erocker said:


> So it looks like AMD's pricing scheme is correct in terms of performance with its competition.




Seems that way, yes. I'm a bit concerned with a lack of products to match the high price ranges offered by Intel, but that's OK, I guess. I wonder what the low-end chips are gonna look like, in configuration, price, AND performance.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 17, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Welcome to 5 pages ago, same thread:
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/s...can do 5ghz on air & 6ghz+ on drice...:laugh:


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 17, 2011)

haven't seen one for 5Ghz on air so i would welcome that haha (phase change not realistic)


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 17, 2011)

erocker said:


> A 2500K will beat both of those.



Not in Dirt 3 though.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 17, 2011)

erocker said:


> Not very good considering it's 8 core vs. 4 core.
> 
> A 2500K will beat both of those.
> 
> So it looks like AMD's pricing scheme is correct in terms of performance with its competition.


What about Hyper Threading? Those 4-cores turn to 8-cores. Let the real Bulldozers come out for real world benchies.


----------



## erocker (Sep 17, 2011)

Super XP said:


> What about Hyper Threading? Those 4-cores turn to 8-cores. Let the real Bulldozers come out for real world benchies.



2500K doesn't have hyperthreading.


----------



## Kantastic (Sep 17, 2011)

erocker said:


> 2500K doesn't have hyperthreading.



On top of that, HT doesn't double performance, not even close.


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 17, 2011)

Kantastic said:


> On top of that, HT doesn't double performance, not even close.



exactly lol....

for real world preformance gain from HT (atleast gaming) just look at the bar graph above HAHA the 2600k is the 2500k with HT, nothingelse is different.

it is clocked at 3.4Ghz and the 2500k is 3.3Ghz, the 2600k gets 2 more FPS  HT RULES!!!


----------



## heky (Sep 17, 2011)

Nope, the 2600K also has more cache.


----------



## naoan (Sep 17, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Not in Dirt 3 though.
> 
> http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/403/bench/CPU2.png



wait, if that graph is true, then doesn't FX-8150 beat 2600K by sizable margin (since 980x > 920 and 8150 > 980X) ?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Sep 17, 2011)

naoan said:


> wait, if that graph is true, then doesn't FX-8150 beat 2600K by sizable margin (since 980x > 920 and 8150 > 980X) ?



It should. If the graph is true of course. I don't have an Intel system or Dirt 3 to test it myself.


----------



## seronx (Sep 18, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> It should. If the graph is true of course. I don't have an Intel system or Dirt 3 to test it myself.



Clock to Clock in games Zambezi = Thuban @ 1200p+

So, it's all dependent on how high you can overclock the sucker but games that abuse the full brute of 8 cores you should see astronomical gains over a Hyperthreading solution
(HTT in games makes the extra 1 thread be the prefetcher or puts it to sleep)
(CMT in games the game now has access to 8 cores each with the ability to prefetch while processing the game)


----------



## Nick89 (Sep 18, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> bulldozer won't be even close to a 2600k, check back for new intel cpus in 2013. ivy bridge is just a 22 nm shrink of sandy bridge, so not worth it if you already have a 2600k



really wizz? I'm sad now. I was hoping AMD would make a comeback in the processor market and we would see some awesome price wars.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Sep 18, 2011)

Here's some more news from Nordic Hardware:

http://translate.google.com/transla...ringen-vaentas-ligga-i-oktober-exklusivt.html


----------



## ivicagmc (Sep 18, 2011)

As I see it, it will be same as first Phenom... Bugs, bugs, bugs... I just hope that I didn't bye my AM3+ board for nothing, and that second bulldozer will be better like Phenom II was... It is very frustrating for AMD fans that they are so slow in implementing new technologies... Hate to say it, but Intel does it much better. I know that Intel has much more money and resources, but I always tough about AMD engineers like very competent and resourceful... 


l


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 18, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Here's some more news from Nordic Hardware:
> 
> http://translate.google.com/transla...ringen-vaentas-ligga-i-oktober-exklusivt.html



i could care less about the article, if it didn't have proper BIOS then its worthless IMO, BUTTTTT did anyone else notice the corsair closed loop water cooler????? im realllly hoping it came with the processor like we have been hearing one might.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 18, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Here's some more news from Nordic Hardware:
> 
> http://translate.google.com/transla...ringen-vaentas-ligga-i-oktober-exklusivt.html



i call BS on this one.


still lets hope it aint true


----------



## Super XP (Sep 18, 2011)

Goodman said:


> Darn you , i wanted for him to look/search to where it was posted before
> 
> Anyhow his next post will probably be a link with some video that it shows how bulldozer can do 5ghz on air & 6ghz+ on drice...


Are you Psychic or something?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlsJ0B04Ndo

You know I am pulling your chain right  My


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Here's some more news from Nordic Hardware:
> 
> http://translate.google.com/transla...ringen-vaentas-ligga-i-oktober-exklusivt.html



Interesting . " AMD still say they expect the FX series is the world's fastest consumer processor ".

Time will tell AMD .


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> Interesting . " AMD still say they expect the FX series is the world's fastest consumer processor ".
> 
> Time will tell AMD .



Think they're talking about  their 8ghz  overclock again


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Think they're talking about  their 8ghz  overclock again


----------



## Super XP (Sep 18, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Think they're talking about  their 8ghz  overclock again


No I don't think they are.... This is a repeat of other so called highest performing claims by the Athlon 64 and the original Athlon... Only time will tell.


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Super XP said:


> No I don't think they are.... This is a repeat of other so called highest performing claims by the Athlon 64 and the original Athlon... Only time will tell.



I hope that there claim is true . But for some reason I just don't buy it . If AMD really did have all this and a bag of chips then why is it so secret and elusive ? I remember a time ( The Athlon days ) When AMD was calling Intel out . But now ? The silence is deafening !


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 18, 2011)

not sure if anyone has seen this video... look the the lower LEFT hand corner (uploader doesn't know left from right) at 0:14...... tomorrow is on there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y-B2kMAC2U&feature=related


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> not sure if anyone has seen this video... look the the lower LEFT hand corner (uploader doesn't know left from right) at 0:14...... tomorrow is on there
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y-B2kMAC2U&feature=related



Sorry I don't get it . Cool video .


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> II remember a time ( The Athlon days ) When AMD was calling Intel out . But now ? The silence is deafening !



Calling out Intel does not generate revenue streams for AMD. All that will do is irritate Intel whom has the resources to shut down AMD by squeezing them out the market place by cockblocking vendors from selecting AMD through propaganda marketing.

Do you really want Intel to spread malicious marketing campaigns (like in the past) stating how awful AMD's products are. 

Do you really want Intel to sell their processors $40 for a few weeks until AMD fold and shut up shop.

Because that is what will happen if AMD constantly "call Intel out".


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Calling out Intel does not generate revenue streams for AMD. All that will do is irritate Intel whom has the resources to shut down AMD by squeezing them out the market place by cockblocking vendors from selecting AMD through propaganda marketing.
> 
> Do you really want Intel to spread malicious marketing campaigns (like in the past) stating how awful AMD's products are.
> 
> ...



I do not think that this will happen . But by stating  "AMD still say they expect the FX series is the world's fastest consumer processor " . They are in fact calling Intel out any way .


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

http://www.megagames.com/news/amd-benchmarks-bulldozer-against-intel%E2%80%99s-core-i5-and-i7

Not sure what this means but take a look at this .


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 18, 2011)

you must be high. this was already posted long time ago, in this thread.


----------



## Goodman (Sep 18, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Are you Psychic or something?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlsJ0B04Ndo
> 
> You know I am pulling your chain right  My



I was just teasing you don't worry about it 

It happen to all/most of us posting link that was already posted or say something that is already been said... there is so many pages sometimes that not all of us want to go true reading all of it , that's understandable 

If you're not sure if something have been posted or said before , you could always do as i usually do & write something like that-> ; 'Not sure if this been posted before , i didn't read all the pages but... blah! blah!'

Just a thought...


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> . But by stating  "AMD still say they_* expect *_the FX series is the world's fastest consumer processor " . They are in fact calling Intel out any way .



Key word is expect. That is not calling out, that is making an presumption based on opinion. In no way are they stating it as absolute fact.

For AMD to genuinely call out Intel there would have to be a persistent highly competitive and angry undertone to their marketing to bait Intel to respond. Such a response will probably be received negatively and with AMD being forced unwillingly out of the market place. And then we all lose.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 18, 2011)

On the day that FX CPU's are released (or at least the numbers are shown) is the day I will stay away from any forum, it will be an absolute shitstorm (even if it matches 2500k/2600k in terms of performance).
I can already expect comments like: it takes them 8 cores to match.... 
/off-topic rant

Carry on now.


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

repman244 said:


> On the day that FX CPU's are released (or at least the numbers are shown) is the day I will stay away from any forum, it will be an absolute shitstorm (even if it matches 2500k/2600k in terms of performance).
> I can already expect comments like: it takes them 8 cores to match....
> /off-topic rant
> 
> Carry on now.



This will be for sure . As 8 cores is more than 4 . So yes if it does this there will be a shitstorm of people ( including me ) saying this . It better BLOW away the comp with 8 cores not just match !


----------



## heky (Sep 18, 2011)

Exactly, becouse AMD are already lagging behind for years, and with so many years of development and so many postpones and all this world record crap, they better bring it!


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 18, 2011)

repman244 said:


> I can already expect comments like: it takes them 8 cores to match....
> /off-topic rant
> 
> Carry on now.



I can see it already. Sigh



trickson said:


> This will be for sure . As 8 cores is more than 4 . So yes if it does this there will be a shitstorm of people ( including me ) saying this . It better BLOW away the comp with 8 cores not just match !



But why would you care? If its cheaper than a Intel 4 core thats all that matters.

Like I don't care if AMD release a 1,000 core CPU if it performs on par with a Intel 4 core, as long as its cheaper who cares?


----------



## happita (Sep 18, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Like I don't care if AMD release a 1,000 core CPU if it performs on par with a Intel 4 core, as long as its cheaper who cares?



^
This. Agreed.


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> But why would you care? If its cheaper than a Intel 4 core thats all that matters.
> 
> Like I don't care if AMD release a 1,000 core CPU if it performs on par with a Intel 4 core, as long as its cheaper who cares?



Because I would . Right now as it is there are very few programs that even come close to using 4 cores let alone 8 cores . The core war is on but there is nothing that can even come close to using all 8 cores on a CPU . It is ( to me any way ) over kill and a waste really . So what if you have 8 cores ? If it can not compete with a CPU that has only 4 cores well that tells me a lot about the product . 
I look at it like this . I have a motor home 35 footer and it has a 454 in it this same RV comes with a V10 by ford as well . But the 454 performs better than the V10 and gets better gas mileage as well . So what is the need for the extra 2 cylinders ? To me NONE at all . They just make it sound like it has more power is all . When in reality it has no more power than mine . 
So even if you keep piling on core after core , If it fails to do the job of a quad then why bother ?   :shadedshu


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 18, 2011)

*off topic*



happita said:


> ^
> This. Agreed.



Hey..... is all this db talk finally made me loose it or did this avatar belongs to someone else.  And everytime trickson post, when I read it, I hear carls voice


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Hey..... is all this db talk finally made me loose it or did this avatar belongs to someone else.  And everytime trickson post, when I read it, I hear carls voice



LOL Thanks I love Carl ! He


----------



## repman244 (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> Because I would . Right now as it is there are very few programs that even come close to using 4 cores let alone 8 cores



You actually missed the point...if it's priced the same/lower and has the SAME/SIMILAR performance, no one cares how many cores it has.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 18, 2011)

Can somebody check the validity of this source:

 Benchmarks : High-End Desktop Performance: AMD "Bulldozer" CPU/APU 



http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...zer&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-a


----------



## repman244 (Sep 18, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Can somebody check the validity of this source:
> 
> Benchmarks : High-End Desktop Performance: AMD "Bulldozer" CPU/APU
> 
> ...



AFAIK it was debated on many forums, and the conclusion was that you simply do not know if you can trust those numbers (like JF stated several times, numbers prior to launch may not representative of the final product...).
We really can't believe any benchmarks before we get official numbers.


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

repman244 said:


> You actually missed the point...if it's priced the same/lower and has the SAME/SIMILAR performance, no one cares how many cores it has.



No , No I did not miss the point . I know what I said . The price is not what matters to me as much as just how well some thing performs . So you would buy a crap AMD CPU before buying a Intel CPU ? Thing is once a Fanboy always a Fanboy .


----------



## repman244 (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> No , No I did not miss the point . I know what I said . The price is not what matters to me as much as just how well some thing performs . So you would buy a crap AMD CPU before buying a Intel CPU ? Thing is once a Fanboy always a Fanboy .



Soooo, you would buy something that costs let's say $4000 rather than something that costs $400 and gives ~5% less performance?
And you were talking about cores (comparing 8 to 4), I only said that it does not matter if the performance is the same for the same money.
Unless you run some mission critical applications which demand the best of the best regardless of the cost. 
And please refrain from using the term fanboy.


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Soooo, you would buy something that costs let's say $4000 rather than something that costs $400 and gives ~5% less performance?
> And you were talking about cores (comparing 8 to 4), I only said that it does not matter if the performance is the same for the same money.
> Unless you run some mission critical applications which demand the best of the best regardless of the cost.
> And please refrain from using the term fanboy.



You are being a tad over the top . 

I guess I think the performance should be far better ( At least twice as good since you have 8 cores ) than a CPU that has only 4 cores . If AMD fails to produce a CPU that can beat a Quad core with 8 cores ( Or just manages to hang head to head ) To me that is a HUGE waste ! 
And 8 core CPU ( This BD ) should be 2 times as fast , Perform twice as fast at benchmarks as a Quad . If not then I see nothing more than adding more to gain in performance and for me that is like I said a waste ! AMD better bring it time is now and people are getting more discouraged as time goes by . The PR stunts and just general BS is not doing them any good at this time . :shadedshu


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 18, 2011)

but your saying twice as good at the same price.... how in the world does that make sense...????? thats like buying a Ferrari for the price of a Camaro, that just isn't going to happen. walk away from la-la land


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> but your saying twice as good at the same price.... how in the world does that make sense...????? thats like buying a Ferrari for the price of a Camaro, that just isn't going to happen. walk away from la-la land



If they are going to be priced the same then one would extrapolate that they will be no better . If you can get a 8 core CPU for the price of say $350 bucks then yeah I would go for it . But it still makes one think why would a CPU with more cores be less powerful than one with only 4 cores . I could care less about the price right now as there is no information at all on any thing from AMD coming out . Lots of fluff and PR nothing at all that matters . 

I would have to say that if I can get a Quad core SB-s or Ivy bridge for $100 dollars more and have then stomp a mud hole in a 8 core CPU that in it's self would be a WIN !


----------



## erocker (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> You are being a tad over the top .
> 
> I guess I think the performance should be far better ( At least twice as good since you have 8 cores ) than a CPU that has only 4 cores . If AMD fails to produce a CPU that can beat a Quad core with 8 cores ( Or just manages to hang head to head ) To me that is a HUGE waste !
> And 8 core CPU ( This BD ) should be 2 times as fast , Perform twice as fast at benchmarks as a Quad . If not then I see nothing more than adding more to gain in performance and for me that is like I said a waste ! AMD better bring it time is now and people are getting more discouraged as time goes by . The PR stunts and just general BS is not doing them any good at this time . :shadedshu



What does it matter when it comes to an end result? A CPU just sits in a machine under a CPU cooler. It could have 100 miniature ponies in it and if the end result is the same, it doesn't matter. What matters is performance and how much that performance costs. You are thinking with a paradigm that more cores should mean more performance. There are internal combustion engines that some with four cylinders and some with 8 cylinders that produce the same amount of power. They can suck as much gas as one another be as fast as one another, etc. All that matters is the end result. As for the "PR stunts" it doesn't work for you.. Okay. It's nothing more than a way for AMD to boost awareness for their product. This is done by everyone who makes anything and tries to sell it. No there are no concrete numbers for this new chip, but that isn't the point. Those will be out when they are out and then people can pass judgement.


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> Right now as it is there are very few programs that even come close to using 4 cores let alone 8 cores.



Are we talking single player or online?

Online, I'll whole heartily disagree.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> You are being a tad over the top .
> 
> I guess I think the performance should be far better ( At least twice as good since you have 8 cores ) than a CPU that has only 4 cores . If AMD fails to produce a CPU that can beat a Quad core with 8 cores ( Or just manages to hang head to head ) To me that is a HUGE waste !
> And 8 core CPU ( This BD ) should be 2 times as fast , Perform twice as fast at benchmarks as a Quad . If not then I see nothing more than adding more to gain in performance and for me that is like I said a waste ! AMD better bring it time is now and people are getting more discouraged as time goes by . The PR stunts and just general BS is not doing them any good at this time . :shadedshu



Over the top in what?

Well I agree that it would be a waste, and like chew* said, it is closer to a 4C/8T CPU than to a true 8 core and that we should not expect it to behave like a true 8 core (that's only his opinion but he has a point). I don't mind AMD adding more cores if the overall performance is good, and if the price is good.
The 8 core name could easily backfire if it doesn't have a decent multithread performance but I guess it's marketing>design.

The price that is rumored can also be a bit misleading since it may not really represent the BD's performance, AFAIK AMD is paying GF only for good dies and not the whole wafer.

See here: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2040223/amd-pay-global-foundries-32nm-chips

This is something that people often forget about when comparing the rumored prices to some previous prices.


----------



## qubit (Sep 18, 2011)

erocker said:


> No there are no concrete numbers for this new chip, but that isn't the point. Those will be out when they are out and then people can pass judgement.



I agree with trickson's overall sentiment that BD should leapfrog Intel's current best, that you replied to, but I also have to agree with your last line above, which really nails it. It's all speculation at this point and judgement should be reserved. AMDs world speed record should be viewed as an interesting PR piece and nothing more.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 18, 2011)

erocker said:


> What does it matter when it comes to an end result? A CPU just sits in a machine under a CPU cooler. It could have 100 miniature ponies in it and if the end result is the same, it doesn't matter. What matters is performance and how much that performance costs. You are thinking with a paradigm that more cores should mean more performance. There are internal combustion engines that some with four cylinders and some with 8 cylinders that produce the same amount of power. They can suck as much gas as one another be as fast as one another, etc. All that matters is the end result. As for the "PR stunts" it doesn't work for you.. Okay. It's nothing more than a way for AMD to boost awareness for their product. This is done by everyone who makes anything and tries to sell it. No there are no concrete numbers for this new chip, but that isn't the point. Those will be out when they are out and then people can pass judgement.



That and AMD isn't even using "real" cores ether. They are modular anyway.


----------



## trickson (Sep 18, 2011)

Well time is running out and we will all soon see just what they can do . I do hope they are good performing CPU's I really need to do a complete rebuild and I am keeping a very close eye on all of this stuff . I am a person that wants the best I can get at the time I buy . I got this setup some 3 years ago or so and it has stood the test of time . It is getting dated although it does every thing with out fail and I could get another 2 years out of it . I am feeling the itch . Soon we will all know just how much and how well the AMD Bulldozer really is . Time is getting short for AMD . I can feel the excitement in the air . I just hope it is not all HOT air in the end .


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> That and AMD isn't even using "real" cores ether. They are modular anyway.



What makes you say that?

I am pretty sure they are real cores, the core components aren't shared


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 19, 2011)

the FP component is shared for 256 calculations so no they aren't TRUE cores.


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> the FP component is shared for 256 calculations so no they aren't TRUE cores.



The Floating Point Coprocessor isn't part of the Cores it's part of the module

Cores are the Integer Clusters but when those Integer Clusters are shared *cough*Intel*cough* you can't call them individual cores


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 19, 2011)

right but a true core also has its own FP coprocessor... look at most other multi core processor


----------



## qubit (Sep 19, 2011)

So, seronx & Covert_Death, let me see if I understand this correctly.

Multicore CPUs to date have literally replicated a single core (comprised of separate integer and FP units) 2,3,4 or 6 times, but Bulldozer won't do this. Instead, it will have some kind of sharing scheme, so that you don't get a true discrete 8 cores? If this is true, then it sucks and I won't be surprised if it won't beat Intel.

I can only imagine that they would do this due to die size/transistor budget/power/heat issues, but it's still a shame.


----------



## twilyth (Sep 19, 2011)

The design is actually meant to conserve die space and the only thing that separates the 8 BD cores from 8 standard cores is the fact that they share an fpu.  But as i understand it, they have their own decode processor, their own integer processor, etc.  I think they also share the L1 cache, but I don't remember.

There is a lot of overhead to doing hyperthreading and that means a lot of silicon.  I don't know the specific numbers, but from what I recall, this method gives you 8 actual cores while using less silicon.


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 19, 2011)

amd is sharing the FP because they plan to eventually phase out the FP part of a processor and move it to the GPU because it can do the calculations much faster. but since that isn't the case today, i don't really consider it a FULL core, maybe 3/4th's to 4/5ths a core haha


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

qubit said:


> So, seronx & Covert_Death, let me see if I understand this correctly.
> 
> Multicore CPUs to date have literally replicated a single core (comprised of separate integer and FP units) 2,3,4 or 6 times, but Bulldozer won't do this. Instead, it will have some kind of sharing scheme, so that you don't get a true discrete 8 cores? If this is true, then it sucks and I won't be surprised if it won't beat Intel.
> 
> I can only imagine that they would do this due to die size/transistor budget/power/heat issues, but it's still a shame.



The sharing scheme is only on the physical level not on the virtual level

The AMD FX 8-core will output the same amount of power as a hypothetical AMD Phenom 8-core



Covert_Death said:


> amd is sharing the FP because they plan to eventually phase out the FP part of a processor and move it to the GPU because it can do the calculations much faster. but since that isn't the case today, i don't really consider it a FULL core, maybe 3/4th's to 4/5ths a core haha



False

The Floating Point *Coprocessor* is being shared to reduce latency


----------



## qubit (Sep 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> The sharing scheme is only on the physical level not on the virtual level
> 
> The AMD FX 8-core will output the same amount of power as a hypothetical AMD Phenom 8-core



That sounds an awful lot like hyperthreading to me, which we all know isn't as powerful as discreet cores ie 1+HT is not as fast as 1+1. Therefore, I don't see how it can be as powerful as having completely discreet cores all on the same die?


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

qubit said:


> That sounds an awful lot like hyperthreading to me, which we all know isn't as powerful as discreet cores ie 1+HT is not as fast as 1+1. Therefore, I don't see how it can be as powerful as having completely discreet cores all on the same die?



No, the Front End and Floating Point

The cores are independent of each other on the hardware level







The front-end provides 8 macro-ops if Fastpath double is used 8 Macro-ops equal 8 64bit ALU + 8 64bit AGU <-- (16 micro ops)
There is 2 cores and each of have 2 ALUs and 2 AGUs(4 ALUs+4 AGUs per cycle then 1 cycle can be queued up per core)

Floating Point provides 2 FMACs and 2 MMX pipes, AVX can be done on both...256bit allowing for 2 256bit AVX to be popped out per cycle if they are Int and Floating Point if they are both floating point but if they are Floating Point 1 waits while the pipe starts to fill again

(Each core can only provide 128bits of operands to the Floating Point per cycle AVX @ 256bit and FMAs @ 256bits takes two cycles to fill up regardless)

1 cycle waiting doesn't affect much since it takes 2 cycles to even make a 256bit occur

This is my limited understanding of Bulldozer

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2396633&postcount=461

Read this if you can understand it


----------



## statikregimen (Sep 19, 2011)

http://www.hardwarecentral.com/reviews/article.php/3911856/AMD-Flexes-New-Floating-Point-Unit.htm

The 8-core BD will have four 256bit FPUs, each of which will be able to process two 128bit operations simultaneously. The current Phenom II chips use one 128bit FPU per core. So we'll still effectively have the same performance potential as the current Phenom IIs. I do not know anything about Intel FPUs, but I believe they are also 128bit.

Sorry if this was already cleared up, but appeared there was still some confusion.


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

statikregimen said:


> I do not know anything about Intel FPUs, but I believe they are also 128bit.



I was also told they were 128bit but I didn't want to bring that up

And I was also told Intel can't have an AVX+SSE nor can it have an integer SSE+ a Floating Point SSE

All which AMD Bulldozer can do


----------



## Super XP (Sep 19, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> not sure if anyone has seen this video... look the the lower LEFT hand corner (uploader doesn't know left from right) at 0:14...... tomorrow is on there
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y-B2kMAC2U&feature=related


WOW, you got eyes like a Hawk. Yes I seen it on the bottom Left hand corner. It says September 19 release date for Bulldozer right on the commercial. 

Pause the video just when it hits 14 seconds, and you will see that date displayed on the guys Gaming Rig.


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> WOW, you got eyes like a Hawk. Yes I seen it on the bottom Left hand corner. It says September 19 release date for Bulldozer right on the commercial.
> 
> Pause the video just when it hits 14 seconds, and you will see that date displayed on the guys Gaming Rig.



My shock meter if it is actually September 19th will be Level 5....Out 6 levels
Level 0 - Knew it
Level 5 - Just expect me to be super surprised and super angry(no reason for this) and racking up "repair" bills(follows the random burst of anger)


----------



## statikregimen (Sep 19, 2011)

...not holding my breath. At the rate things are going, we're not going to see this chip before December and by then, I will be in a loony bin from all the anxiety and excitement.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 19, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Key word is expect. That is not calling out, that is making an presumption based on opinion. In no way are they stating it as absolute fact.
> 
> For AMD to genuinely call out Intel there would have to be a persistent highly competitive and angry undertone to their marketing to bait Intel to respond. Such a response will probably be received negatively and with AMD being forced unwillingly out of the market place. And then we all lose.


Do you see what is happening? The same can be said for ATI back in the day claiming they had the fastest GPU in the world. Well to them, it was, but to Nvidia it was not. Both AMD and Intel play these games all the time. 

That said, we live by the term Freedom of Speech. AMD has been well known for keeping new technologies and designs under closed doors where as Intel pumps out fast CPU's like there was no tomorrow. 

My point is AMD cannot fail this time around, they know for a fact Bulldozer CANNOT be a nother Barcelona or they will get killed in the stock market. 

This is why IMHO Bulldozer will either Bulldoze the competition of stay dam competative. It has absolutely no choice to do so.


statikregimen said:


> ...not holding my breath. At the rate things are going, we're not going to see this chip before December and by then, I will be in a loony bin from all the anxiety and excitement.


They better get released in October 2011 at the very latest or I will also have to check into a loony bin


----------



## statikregimen (Sep 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> My point is AMD cannot fail this time around, they know for a fact Bulldozer CANNOT be a nother Barcelona or they will get killed in the stock market.



Not only that, but if AMD fails, it is bad news even for Intel fans...Prices will skyrocket. There has to be competition or everybody looses (except Intel).


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

statikregimen said:


> Not only that, but if AMD fails, it is bad news even for Intel fans...Prices will skyrocket. There has to be competition or everybody looses (except Intel).



Just how is it that Intel will magically raise the prices if AMD fails ? I mean this notion that Intel will raise prices is just bull shit . I hate it when people talk like this . Intel has the largest stake in the CPU market as it is and I fail to see them raising prices so far out of reach of the consumer as to put themselves out of business , Wake up and stop this price war crap I am not buying it .


----------



## statikregimen (Sep 19, 2011)

Simple supply and demand. They'll have to start producing somewhere around 30% (as I recall to be AMD's estimated market share) more CPUs than they are currently. Maybe "skyrocket" is a bit strong of a word, but they will have to go up, unless Intel is running that far under capacity right now. I am not saying it is because Intel is evil...I'm saying it based on simple economics.


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> Just how is it that Intel will magically raise the prices if AMD fails ? I mean this notion that Intel will raise prices is just bull shit . I hate it when people talk like this . Intel has the largest stake in the CPU market as it is and I fail to see them raising prices so far out of reach of the consumer as to put themselves out of business , Wake up and stop this price war crap I am not buying it .








They rise prices!!! Regardless of competition!!!


----------



## Super XP (Sep 19, 2011)

To the above POST....

I would have to agree. If Intel has no competition, you can easily expect CPU prices to go up. Perhaps not super high, but high enough because they can and you will have no choice but to buy them. 

On the other hand, AMD somehow helped lower GPU prices which forced NVIDIA to follow. AMD can afford to drop GPU prices, NV cannot to that extent. Anyway Intel does not hurt as much when they drop prices.


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

Good GOD the fucking sky is falling ! Intel will raise prices . The end is nigh ! I so hate this BS crap talk . AMD better bring it or they might as well close up shop then ! If AMD doesn't bring it to Intel this time they are DONE FOR GOOD ! Say good by to AMD the only thing they will have is ATI ! Sound about right ? Please .... Just how many people are they going to reach with a CPU priced at over 2 grand ? Come on there is just an E-Peen out there needing to be stroked . Intel knows this but come on the average joe will NOT buy this crap !


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> Just how is it that Intel will magically raise the prices if AMD fails ? I mean this notion that Intel will raise prices is just bull shit . I hate it when people talk like this . Intel has the largest stake in the CPU market as it is and I fail to see them raising prices so far out of reach of the consumer as to put themselves out of business , Wake up and stop this price war crap I am not buying it .



Monopoly, why wouldn't they, if hypothetically AMD flunked? It's a win-win scenario for them, eventually people will need to buy CPU's and Intel would be the only supplier


----------



## Super XP (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> Good GOD the fucking sky is falling ! Intel will raise prices . The end is nigh ! I so hate this BS crap talk . AMD better bring it or they might as well close up shop then ! If AMD doesn't bring it to Intel this time they are DONE FOR GOOD ! Say good by to AMD the only thing they will have is ATI ! Sound about right ? Please ....


IBM will never let AMD die off, they always use AMD as leverage agaist Intel 
If Intel had a chance to raise prices, they will and without competition, "THEY WILL" just like they did in the past B4 AMD's Hammer release (Athlon 64)....Anyway who gives a rats behind, I just can't wait to see the REAL Bulldozer in action and on store shelves.....


Jegergrim said:


> Monopoly, why wouldn't they, if hypothetically AMD flunked? It's a win-win scenario for them, eventually people will need to buy CPU's and Intel would be the only supplier


I love it when either company releases super fast CPU's, it just makes the other come up with newer designs. It motivates COMPETITION for both companies. Anyhow even MS would not let AMD fail....


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

Jegergrim said:


> Monopoly, why wouldn't they, if hypothetically AMD flunked? It's a win-win scenario for them, eventually people will need to buy CPU's and Intel would be the only supplier



Well no not really IBM and VIA also make CPU's .


----------



## statikregimen (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> Well no not really IBM and VIA also make CPU's .


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> Good GOD the fucking sky is falling ! Intel will raise prices . The end is nigh ! I so hate this BS crap talk . AMD better bring it or they might as well close up shop then ! If AMD doesn't bring it to Intel this time they are DONE FOR GOOD ! Say good by to AMD the only thing they will have is ATI ! Sound about right ? Please .... Just how many people are they going to reach with a CPU priced at over 2 grand ? Come on there is just an E-Peen out there needing to be stroked . Intel knows this but come on the average joe will NOT buy this crap !



Well I doubt AMD will just vanish if they dont "bring it to Intel", They'd just be forced to offer entry-level CPU's around the market, but enthusiast grade CPU's Intel would thrive on... but then again they wouldn't have a need to follow up on their release date for Ivy or SB-E due to no competition


----------



## Super XP (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> Well no not really IBM and VIA also make CPU's .


And what's the % of IBM and VIA CPU's in the market? They cannot compete with Intel, only AMD can is my point.


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> Well no not really IBM and VIA also make CPU's .



On client market share, they are pretty irrelevant, even you can agree on that:shadedshu


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

Jegergrim said:


> Well I doubt AMD will just vanish if they dont "bring it to Intel", They'd just be forced to offer entry-level CPU's around the market, but enthusiast grade CPU's Intel would thrive on... but then again they wouldn't have a need to follow up on their release date for Ivy or SB-E due to no competition



I highly doubt this will be the case . I think AMD will be just fine and they will bring it on with Bulldozer . I just hate this BS talk about Intel will raise prices and the end is near ! It is not going to happen . Even if it does just how many CPU's do you think Intel will sell at 2 grand a pop ? In these hard times I bet there will be very little of them not even enough to justify MAKING them in the first place .



Jegergrim said:


> On client market share, they are pretty irrelevant, even you can agree on that


Agreed , But if Intel raises the prices they can PUSH people out of there market right into the other guys just as fast . Cash TALKS bullshit walks . If you think Intel can not PRICE themselves out of the market think again !

My point is there is always going to be a choice no matter what .


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> I highly doubt this will be the case . I think AMD will be just fine and they will bring it on with Bulldozer . I just hate this BS talk about Intel will raise prices and the end is near ! It is not going to happen . Even if it does just how many CPU's do you think Intel will sell at 2 grand a pop ? In these hard times I bet there will be very little of them not even enough to justify MAKING them in the first place .



Well in the case that bulldozer doesn't disappoint, whether its price/perf ratio or simply just blowing away 2500k, ofcourse not. And 2k a piece also seems drastic, but realistically a price jump of maybe 30-50% could be realistic, considering every OEM PC would also need these cpus and it frankly doesnt make much sense to pay 90% of your OEM pcs worth just for the cpu residing in it. I agree that they wont sell easily at 2k a piece, it would be a rare commodity, but prices would however rise alot for the average joe, if monopoly were to happen


----------



## Super XP (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> I highly doubt this will be the case . I think AMD will be just fine and they will bring it on with Bulldozer . I just hate this BS talk about Intel will raise prices and the end is near ! It is not going to happen . Even if it does just how many CPU's do you think Intel will sell at 2 grand a pop ? In these hard times I bet there will be very little of them not even enough to justify MAKING them in the first place .
> 
> 
> Agreed , But if Intel raises the prices they can PUSH people out of there market right into the other guys just as fast . Cash TALKS bullshit walks . If you think Intel can not PRICE themselves out of the market think again !
> ...


Did you know companies today won't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole all due to it's issues it had many years ago. Even today after so much time, they always buy Intel based CPU's. That section in the market is what AMD needs to work hard on, to gain there trust.

I wouldn't mind if the first Bulldozer's don't perform as well as they should, so long as it sticks to the right Price/Performance ratio. Who knows, AMD may need more time to tweak the design seeing how complex it really is.


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Did you know companies today won't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole all due to it's issues it had many years ago. Even today after so much time, they always buy Intel based CPU's. That section in the market is what AMD needs to work hard on, to gain there trust.



I have to agree, I can relate to this by many of my gamer-friends, they cannot even relate to AMD in anyway when it comes to CPU's, their only school of though is somewhere along the lines of "Intel=Quality and performance, therefore I will buy Intel since they are the best".


----------



## Super XP (Sep 19, 2011)

Jegergrim said:


> I have to agree, I can relate to this by many of my gamer-friends, they cannot even relate to AMD in anyway when it comes to CPU's, their only school of though is somewhere along the lines of "Intel=Quality and performance, therefore I will buy Intel since they are the best".


That's right, also you got companies along with Goverments such as here the City of Toronto in Ontario, Canada where they only use Intel based notebooks and desktop PC's. I know of other companies which only look for the INTEL brand, some even don't know what an AMD is lol....


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> That's right, also you got companies along with Goverments such as here the City of Toronto in Ontario, Canada where they only use Intel based notebooks and desktop PC's. I know of other companies which only look for the INTEL brand, some even don't know what an AMD is lol....



Indeed, but I think the big hype about 8-cores on a die is one of AMD's marketing strategies to get it self known again, at least to non-enthusiasts, considering theres only 4 cores on desktops so far, and most people believe more cores= better performance, so a 100% increase in cores, could indeed wake up a couple of people


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 19, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> amd is sharing the FP because they plan to eventually phase out the FP part of a processor and move it to the GPU because it can do the calculations much faster. but since that isn't the case today, i don't really consider it a FULL core, maybe 3/4th's to 4/5ths a core haha





seronx said:


> False
> 
> The Floating Point *Coprocessor* is being shared to reduce latency



No he's right but I can't find it for the life of me.

Basically, the GPU is going to be integrated in place of the FP unit. Why do you think Graphics Core Next is going to support so many CPU specific features (namely visualization, x64 pointers, etc)?


----------



## Jegergrim (Sep 19, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> No he's right but I can't find it for the life of me.
> 
> Basically, the GPU is going to be integrated in place of the FP unit. Why do you think Graphics Core Next is going to support so many CPU specific features (namely visualization, x64 pointers, etc)?



Does that mean AMD cpu's only will be compatible with ATI/AMD Graphics?


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Basically, the GPU is going to be integrated in place of the FP unit. Why do you think Graphics Core Next is going to support so many CPU specific features (namely visualization, x64 pointers, etc)?



But, Fermi already has all of that stuff....AMD is just finally adding it to their GPUs

GPUs will never take place of the Floating Point Coprocessor

CUDA 4.0/4.1 drivers add everything you just said to Fermi


----------



## Lionheart (Sep 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> But, Fermi already has all of that stuff....AMD is just finally adding it to their GPUs
> 
> GPUs will never take place of the Floating Point Coprocessor
> 
> CUDA 4.0/4.1 drivers add everything you just said to Fermi



I like your system specs can it run Final Doom?


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> I like your system specs can it run Final Doom?



@ 900 FPS

I had to recompile the game for the lack of 3dNow

You will be missed 3dnow


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> I highly doubt this will be the case . I think AMD will be just fine and they will bring it on with Bulldozer . I just hate this BS talk about Intel will raise prices and the end is near ! It is not going to happen . Even if it does just how many CPU's do you think Intel will sell at 2 grand a pop ? In these hard times I bet there will be very little of them not even enough to justify MAKING them in the first place .



Some people have short memories.

When Intel was rocking 1000 dollar price tags on its consumer CPU's the market was a fraction of what it is now. The Internet was in its infancy and not every home had some kind of x86 processor. Yet Intel was the go to company and they could price their CPU at anything they wanted. Why? Because they had the supply and the capability to deliver. BEFORE AMD was in the market.

Any company nowadays that could delver an exclusive tech to the communication age ordinated populace can name its price. This isn't about Intel being an evil company. This is about supply and demand. Very basic economics. If Intel or AMD had the only car on the block and you HAD to ride.....what do you think they will charge for said ride? Apple markets almost exclusively to this principle. They market "innovation" and being bleeding edge. Never mind its not true. People pay the premium for the edge. An edge Apple doesn't even have. Do you think Intel being the only kid on the block with a working car wouldn't tax you extra for a ride? A REAL edge unlike a marketed one like Apple?

Unless you believe Intel is above the very principles of economics and human nature? If you believe that I got a bridge to sell ya.


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

http://www.ibuypower.com/Info/amd-bulldozer.aspx

Now will it include LHe?


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

Well since there is NO real news on this I am done . I am sick of hearing the same crap over and over . Time will tell . AMD better be bringing it on and hard . It has been far too long and the wait has taken it's toll on most . The comments aside all the BS about BD aside AMD has to put up or shut up !


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://www.ibuypower.com/Info/amd-bulldozer.aspx
> 
> Now will it include LHe?



says it will be available this fall, so not too much time left haha


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> says it will be available this fall, so not too much time left haha



September 22nd begins the fall season to...darn you ShopBLT

But, no reason to trust ShopBLT


----------



## MilkyWay (Sep 19, 2011)

Obviously supply and demand draw up a large portion of price and availability. Look at the 3DS and how no one was buying it so the price is now exponentially lower. If Intel was the only major player left making CPUs they could raise prices in order to capitalise on the lack of competition, basically because there is nobody there to force the prices down. Unless lack of demand somehow managed to force down prices. 

Although one would think Intel on its own could force prices of its products up Microsoft dont sell their operating system for astonishingly expensive prices and they have almost a monopoly on the PC market.


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> almost a monopoly on the PC market.



I would have to say that 98% of all computers run some form of windows . They have a monopoly , They even went to court over this and were found to have said monopoly ! And I still do not see Microsoft charging such a high price that they have forced out the people that put bread on there table . one reason why I do not buy into all this crap about Intel will raise the prices . HELL they can set whatever price they want NOW as NO ONE EVEN KNOWS WHAT AMD IS ! OK now I am done . . . . Maybe  . . . . . .


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 19, 2011)

lol how does no one know what AMD is, the people that don't know what AMD is are the same people that don't know what Intel is. and microsoft does have a monopoly seeing as their OS can cost a few hundred dollars haha, apple OS only costs like 30 bucks haha


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> lol how does no one know what AMD is, the people that don't know what AMD is are the same people that don't know what Intel is. and microsoft does have a monopoly seeing as their OS can cost a few hundred dollars haha, apple OS only costs like 30 bucks haha



WOW . Have you even been in a retail store ? Have you seen how the people look at computers ? Most see HP that is it . I tell you what go up to any one of them giblet heads and ask them what an AMD setup is . You will see what I mean .


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 19, 2011)

nobody is going to be looking at HP anymore lol.... and my point is they look at the computer brand, not the CPU brand powering the thing, if you ask anyone what part of the computer intel is responsible for they will stare at you blankly because its just a name, as much as AMD is a name. yes Intel sells a lot more PC's in places like bestbuy and all that crap but it doesn't mean people know what it is or what it does. people who have any idea of what a processor is also are aware of a company known as AMD


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

I don't see the point of this thread any more . 26 pages and only about 5% has any news and that is even sketchy at best . I hope they get this CPU out soon . It is giving me a head ache .


----------



## xenocide (Sep 19, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> lol how does no one know what AMD is, the people that don't know what AMD is are the same people that don't know what Intel is. and microsoft does have a monopoly seeing as their OS can cost a few hundred dollars haha, apple OS only costs like 30 bucks haha



Windows cost more because it has better compatibility, is a one time charge, and can be carried over to new hardware configurations.  Apple charges you for every update of OS X, and gouges on hardware costs, while deciding exactly what hardware you can and can't install their OS on.  Going from a 2.3GHz CPU 1 model up to a 2.66GHz can cost upwards of several hundred dollars when it comes to Apple Products.  But I don't see AMD\Bulldozer CPU's being offered in Apple machines any time soon, so I have no idea how that couple possibly be on topic.


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 19, 2011)

well linux is free and runs on everything lmao


----------



## xenocide (Sep 19, 2011)

Covert_Death said:


> well linux is free and runs on everything lmao



And runs how many well-known and used programs flawlessly without Emulation, VM-style software, a dozen software fixes, or with a million problems?  Exactly.  Linux is cute for fiddling around with and for developing in super-niche scenarios, but to imply it EVER has a chance of wide-spread adoption is silly.



trickson said:


> I would have to say that 98% of all computers run some form of windows . They have a monopoly , They even went to court over this and were found to have said monopoly ! And I still do not see Microsoft charging such a high price that they have forced out the people that put bread on there table . one reason why I do not buy into all this crap about Intel will raise the prices . HELL they can set whatever price they want NOW as NO ONE EVEN KNOWS WHAT AMD IS ! OK now I am done . . . . Maybe  . . . . . .



The Anti-Trust suit you are referring too actually involved including Office and Internet Explorer in the operating system by default, which basically shut any company who developed like software out of the market.  Also, do you know how Microsoft got to where it is now?  They made a BETTER product than their competitors.

EDIT:  But once against, none of this has ANYTHING to do with Bulldozer.


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 19, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Also, do you know how Microsoft got to where it is now?  They made a BETTER product than their competitors.



agreed, and no it doesn't have much to do with BD, BUTTTTT it should totally be releasing today ?!?!?!


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> But, Fermi already has all of that stuff....AMD is just finally adding it to their GPUs
> 
> GPUs will never take place of the Floating Point Coprocessor
> 
> CUDA 4.0/4.1 drivers add everything you just said to Fermi



Does Fermi support x86 virtual memory? How about IOMMU for GPU? 64b x86 pointers for GPU that are the same for CPU? Unified virtual address space between CPU and GPU? A GPU that can handle page faults? Memory coherence between CPU and GPU?

I'd be surprised if Fermi supported some of that x86 stuff since only Intel, AMD, and VIA have licenses to support execution of x86 code without a on chip translator.

Also, I'd like to take your "GPUs will never take the place of the Floating Point Coprocessor" and make a quote out of it since AMD has already stated that this is the end game of Fusion.


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Does Fermi support x86 virtual memory? How about IOMMU for GPU? 64b x86 pointers for GPU that are the same for CPU? Unified virtual address space between CPU and GPU? A GPU that can handle page faults? Memory coherence between CPU and GPU?
> 
> I'd be surprised if Fermi supported some of that x86 stuff since only Intel, AMD, and VIA have licenses to support execution of x86 code without a on chip translator.
> 
> Also, I'd like to take your "GPUs will never take the place of the Floating Point Coprocessor" and make a quote out of it since AMD has already stated that this is the end game of Fusion.









Everything else has either been added or will be added

x86 execution won't happen on GPUs

Instant a GPU goes on die and does what a Floating Point unit does....It's not a GPU anymore it's a Floating Point Coprocessor
As said before GPUs will never take the place of Floating Point Coprocessors


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 19, 2011)

Well I still stand by my statement that the FPU will be replaced with the GPU being integrated just like the FP currently is.

That's already been stated by AMD.

They are not going to call it a FPU if it has a SMID array. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's called a duck. If it executes like a GPU, runs like a GPU, and needs code like a GPU, then it's going to be called a GPU and not a FPU. It will be able to do what a FPU does but also be able to execute GPU code.

Just saying. As to whether it will be called a GPU or FPU (or something else) time will tell but AMD has already stated their plans which is why they are calling it an APU.


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Just saying. As to whether it will be called a GPU or FPU (or something else) time will tell but AMD has already stated their plans which is why they are calling it an APU.



APU is a CPU+GPU

It's not anyway destroying the Floating Point Coprocessor


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 19, 2011)

Unless AMD has stated such........which they have.


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Unless AMD has stated such........which they have.



Where?


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 19, 2011)

Like I said. I can't find it right now.

Give me a couple days to see if I can come up with it.


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Like I said. I can't find it right now.
> 
> Give me a couple days to see if I can come up with it.



I'll give you a day because I don't want you pulling an AMD.



I don't want to wait till Q5.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 19, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Like I said. I can't find it right now.
> 
> Give me a couple days to see if I can come up with it.



http://techreport.com/articles.x/19514



> Another explanation we've heard is that, with AMD's emphasis on CPU-GPU fusion, floating-point-intensive problems may be delegated to GPUs or arrays of GPU-like parallel processing engines in the future.





http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...to_Develop_Fusion_Processors_for_Servers.html

http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/06/10/fusion-for-servers/

Fusion is not only for games (they are talking about servers so games are out of the question).

I saved you a few days of search


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 19, 2011)

*they delayed the scheduled delay to a later date*

Mid october delay......


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 19, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> Does Fermi support x86 virtual memory? How about IOMMU for GPU? 64b x86 pointers for GPU that are the same for CPU? Unified virtual address space between CPU and GPU? A GPU that can handle page faults? Memory coherence between CPU and GPU?
> 
> I'd be surprised if Fermi supported some of that x86 stuff since only Intel, AMD, and VIA have licenses to support execution of x86 code without a on chip translator.
> 
> Also, I'd like to take your "GPUs will never take the place of the Floating Point Coprocessor" and make a quote out of it since AMD has already stated that this is the end game of Fusion.



GPUs are just Accelerated FPPs


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Mid october delay......



Oh more good news coming from AMD . Another delay !


----------



## catnipkiller (Sep 19, 2011)

amd loves to fuck with people.


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

catnipkiller said:


> amd loves to fuck with people.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 19, 2011)

OMG! A two week delay! How will we ever survive! AMD is dead apparently!............or their vendors haven't cleared out enough old stock yet.


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> OMG! A two week delay! How will we ever survive! AMD is dead apparently!............or their vendors haven't cleared out enough old stock yet.



AMD is like my wife , Every time I am ready to leave and go out to shop , eat or just get a pack of smokes , You know what she tells me ? Take a guess ! 

Wait I am not ready and when she finally is ready she looks at me while in the "f" ing car and tells me HOLD ON I have to PEE ! Yeah AMD is just like my wife always delaying me and delaying me !


----------



## catnipkiller (Sep 19, 2011)

just cuz i can POST # 420 and the bad thing is im in school lol.

Id rather have amd delay somthing like this for a month then have it come out and have problems.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 19, 2011)

trickson said:


> AMD is like my wife , Every time I am ready to leave and go out to shop , eat or just get a pack of smokes , You know what she tells me ? Take a guess !
> 
> Wait I am not ready and when she finally is ready she looks at me while in the "f" ing car and tells me HOLD ON I have to PEE ! Yeah AMD is just like my wife always delaying me and delaying me !



Dude.....there is no delay. Q4 is Q4. October is Q4. The only time you will be able to bitch AMD did not deliver is January 1st of 2012.


----------



## trickson (Sep 19, 2011)

catnipkiller said:


> just cuz i can POST # 420 and the bad thing is im in school lol.
> 
> Id rather have amd delay somthing like this for a month then have it come out and have problems.



LOL just like my wife . 
If AMD is having problems NOW at this POINT in the game after all the previous delays what will it matter now ? I do not think 2 weeks will fix any thing . I think it is to get the stock they have out off the shelves like TheMailman78 said .


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 19, 2011)

*they got us!*

This keeps up Pile driver may come out first..... or we may all be the victim of the biggest April fools joke ever  all it'll take is a few more delays and some liquid nitrogen!  Amd .... stealth.. evil... genius..es. Intel will release 10 new cpus....... wait...... they're in this together!!!!    oh the humanity


----------



## linoliveira (Sep 19, 2011)

JF post at XS -> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-info-fans-!&p=4952845&viewfull=1#post4952845

some confirmation about the overhead in adding a second core to the module (about none) that some were complaining got explained


> The overhead from sharing is pretty low, so you get pretty close to the same performance. Running one thread on each module vs. filling the modules means that, to run the same # of threads, you will be doubling the amount of power required because you have fired up 2 modules.



hope this clarifies some doubts


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 19, 2011)

linoliveira said:


> JF post at XS -> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-info-fans-!&p=4952845&viewfull=1#post4952845
> 
> some confirmation about the overhead in adding a second core to the module (about none) that some were complaining got explained
> 
> ...



not without hte sentence in front and behind that statement. It doesn't give the smae info without those other sentences.


----------



## linoliveira (Sep 19, 2011)

I think the architecture is the same in the server part. And he states the 4C/4T only sucks more power than 2C/4T in BD and adds no performance gains. So this can also apply to desktop parts.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 19, 2011)

linoliveira said:


> I think the architecture is the same in the server part. And he states the 4C/4T only sucks more power than 2C/4T in BD and adds no performance gains. So this can also apply to desktop parts.



Server is a completely different ballgame.


----------



## bucketface (Sep 19, 2011)

well that "ember 19th" rumour was bs.


> That ...mber 19th is/was the joke of the year, just saw these slides:
> http://www.abload.de/img/bb14cbg.png
> http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9159/phenom4full.jpg
> Source: http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showpo...ostcount=22930
> Thx@deadohiosky



i guess the next bet is on october.

EDIT: @linoliveira
the 2 images seem to line up identically so i would presume that they are of the same slide and AMD was "taking the piss". 



linoliveira said:


> I think the architecture is the same in the server part. And he states the 4C/4T only sucks more power than 2C/4T in BD and adds no performance gains. So this can also apply to desktop parts.


i thought he was saying that pushing 2 seperate threads into 2 separate modules would provide almost no perf gain in most cases and only increase power consumption and lower turbo headroom.
EDIT:NVM thats what u ware saying..wait what do u mean 2c/4t? argh need to go to bed. its too late.


----------



## linoliveira (Sep 19, 2011)

bucketface said:


> well that "ember 19th" rumour was bs.
> 
> 
> i guess the next bet is on october.



I also saw that, but "...ember" could be September, November or even December! LOL
when the video first came out i didn't even realize that the month name was not complete


----------



## erocker (Sep 19, 2011)

Some of you that come into these Bulldozer threads ever other day to post the same regurgitated crap just need to give it up. We understand that you don't like waiting. We understand that you are impatient and this may be too much for you to handle. So, if someone feels like posting useful information.. go for it. If you want to complain, post off topic, post nonsense, etc. Go away. I'm not talking to anyone in particular, but those who this post seems to relate to will know this is for them.

If you want to find Bulldozer information, search through the various news articles here.


----------

