Musselseven if they only match the i7's out today (and not what comes next) AMD will have a clear winner if they can deliver that performance at a lower price, or with more physical cores.

Agreed. Though I believe the Bulldozer design is meant to compete with Intel's next gen after the Nehalem. But yes if that was the case it would be a clear winner for both AMD and us gamers.

Musselsquad? why aim so low! go for hexa or octa!

I'm sort of expecting 8-12. I can't recall exactly where I read it, but an article saying that in the server market, 12 cores (as opposed to eight) dominated AMD's sales. The idea that they'd trickle down to the desktop space seems appropriate.

cdawallWith a good kit I can get the same performance on am3 as 1156 it depends on the ics and clocker memory is not equal on diff platforms. Cas6 2000 and cas 8 2400 won't be much if any different and 890 series chipsets can push 2000 and higher for amd.

That's nice, but doesn't reflect my own experience.

This graph is AMD @ 2000. Just pay attention to the last line.SOURCE


This is my own system, same timings:


There's a big difference in performance there. WELL OVER 5000MB per sec, to be exact, and basically 33% FASTER. I hope the new AMD chips make up this deficit.

Im not surprised..... AMD Black Vision FX Ultra Extreme 1337 PwNSauce WTF"XXX"ZOMG FTW Edition X will always attract some kids :laugh:

Soon they will release something with the name Cryptonite and paint it green instead of the current Vision Black.

cadavecaThat's nice, but doesn't reflect my own experience.

This graph is AMD @ 2000. Just pay attention to the last line.SOURCE
forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=39958&stc=1&d=1294069272

This is my own system, same timings:
forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=39959&stc=1&d=1294069357

There's a big difference in performance there. WELL OVER 5000MB per sec, to be exact, and basically 33% FASTER. I hope the new AMD chips make up this deficit.

That test was completed with a freshly assembled AMD system. I too am hoping AMD's new improved Quad-Channel DDR3-1866 Integrated Memory Controller inside Bulldozer based CPU's will blow away what they have today. :D

its not fucking quad channel god damn it ppl need to read shit and pay attention JF-AMD on this very forum already stated its DUAL CHANNEL for desktop bulldozer cpus and that bandwidth wise it should be comparible to i7s TRIPLE CHANNEL you will notice the lack of QUAD mentioned anywhere in this post

thank you and good night

Super XPThat test was completed with a freshly assembled AMD system. I too am hoping AMD's new improved Quad-Channel DDR3-1866 Integrated Memory Controller inside Bulldozer based CPU's will blow away what they have today. :D

I guarantee you it's not Quad Channel...

cadavecaThat's nice, but doesn't reflect my own experience.

This graph is AMD @ 2000. Just pay attention to the last line.SOURCE
forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=39958&stc=1&d=1294069272

This is my own system, same timings:
forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=39959&stc=1&d=1294069357

There's a big difference in performance there. WELL OVER 5000MB per sec, to be exact, and basically 33% FASTER. I hope the new AMD chips make up this deficit.

When they retest with the nb @3200+ ill take your random review with more than a grain of salt.

cdawallWhen they retest with the nb @3200+ ill take your random review with more than a grain of salt.

Sure, that's your choice. even with NB @ 3000-3200, the deficit is only lessened by another 2000MB/sec. You can run those tests yourself, as I already have.

I can only relate my own expereince...but because it's experience, I can back it up, too.

I mean, I only point this out, becuase for me, this is one of the major points that AMD must overcome with thier new products. It's not a terrible thing..it's not gonna mke AMD parts obsolete...but it does need to be addressed.

CDdude55I guarantee you it's not Quad Channel...

I thought it was 2 x Dual-Channel IMC's to feed the Octa-Core's and behond? Something like gang and un-ganding them. Anyway, I am a little late in the game in terms of Bulldozers memory structure, thanks for the guarantee though :)

cadavecaSure, that's your choice. even with NB @ 3000-3200, the deficit is only lessened by another 2000MB/sec. You can run those tests yourself, as I already have.

I can only relate my own expereince...but because it's experience, I can back it up, too.

I mean, I only point this out, becuase for me, this is one of the major points that AMD must overcome with thier new products. It's not a terrible thing..it's not gonna mke AMD parts obsolete...but it does need to be addressed.

Depends how you look at it somehow mad got miniscule improvements going from 1600 6-9-6 to 2000 6-9-6 sounds like some kind of bottleneck to me...also boards have bios updates to very immature there will be vast imrpovements just like when the sb750s came out. Heck in asus's own lineup the 890gx and 890fx perform 2000mb/s different with the same ram and cpus. I also have a fair bit of experience with this whole overclocking thing and can tell you from experience 400mhz (20% faster) doesn't go poof without a reason. Oh and youe pic shows the amd 1600mhz results while you boast 2000mhz results so fair test to start thanks.

Super XPI thought it was 2 x Dual-Channel IMC's to feed the Octa-Core's and behond? Something like gang and un-ganding them. Anyway, I am a little late in the game in terms of Bulldozers memory structure, thanks for the guarantee though :)

JF-AMD said something about it already a while ago i believe. But really, since he's only in tune mainly with the server side of things at AMD, it's always good to remain skeptical.:)

IIRC it's quad channel on the G34 and maybe C32 server motherboards, but dual channel on consumer motherboards. Also, I believe consumer processors will go 4-8 cores but server should have 8, 12, and 16 cores models available

kirtarIIRC it's quad channel on the G34 and maybe C32 server motherboards, but dual channel on consumer motherboards. Also, I believe consumer processors will go 4-8 cores but server should have 8, 12, and 16 cores models available

you are correct at least according to the AMD slides

*hopes that there's an 8-core in his price range*
For some reason I doubt it, but it's possible

I could prolly go hexa but i dont think the Asus M3a32mvp-deluxe will handle a octo core cpu

AthloniteI could prolly go hexa but i dont think the Asus M3a32mvp-deluxe will handle a octo core cpu

I'm pretty sure it supports the current 6 core phenoms but as far as i knew there would be no support for the AM3+ phenoms (bulldozer cores) on AM2+ boards.

At least i hope not as i need a good excuse to stop using my m3a32-mvp deluxe as it's already been through 3 CPU's, 2 sets of ram and 3 GPU's and i don't want to keep using it anymore :laugh:

meh it's still a good board but if needs must then a new mobo ram and cpu it will be and your right it does support the PII x6 core cpus from amd via the 2202 bios update

Athlonitemeh it's still a good board but if needs must then a new mobo ram and cpu it will be

Don't get me wrong i love this board and it has served me well for years even with loads of over volting and abuse all around while allowing me to upgrade everything but the board, now i want to move on to DDR3 and either something from sandy bridge or bulldozer thus why it's no longer going to be part of my gaming rig but as it's still running rock solid it may end up as part of a NAS/media streaming pc.

If i was less of an upgrade whore i would happily keep it around but even with the many upgrades this board has received this year will be the year it gets replaced and hopefully with another board that will keep me happy with upgrades for a couple years again.

Athloniteit does support the PII x6 core cpus from amd via the 2202 bios update

I had considered putting one of the 6 core phenoms in it but with sandy bridge and bulldozer relatively close for me it's not worth it, yet if i intended to keep this board for a year or more then i would defiantly get one in it and love it I'm sure.

I'd say use it as an home server with WHS

yes it is a great board handles lots of V everywhere without packin a wobly

but finding a mobo with the same sort of potential is hard many's a time I've looked at AM3 mobo's and think that's worse than the mobo I have or damn that cost an arm n leg retailers here love to jack prices up

cdawallDepends how you look at it somehow mad got miniscule improvements going from 1600 6-9-6 to 2000 6-9-6 sounds like some kind of bottleneck to me...also boards have bios updates to very immature there will be vast imrpovements just like when the sb750s came out. Heck in asus's own lineup the 890gx and 890fx perform 2000mb/s different with the same ram and cpus. I also have a fair bit of experience with this whole overclocking thing and can tell you from experience 400mhz (20% faster) doesn't go poof without a reason. Oh and youe pic shows the amd 1600mhz results while you boast 2000mhz results so fair test to start thanks.

I don't care about the cause behind performance deficits. it very simply is a deficit, and no explanation will make the performance different go away. I know very simply that a large part of the difference in bios perforamcne is either AGESA code changes, or subtimings. But neither is going to fix the performance gap.

And yes, I did link NOT the wrong graph. the fact of the matter is that I could NOT get the same speeds on AMD as I do on Intel, with the exact same sticks. But the link is there with 2000mhz numbers, anyway.

Anyway, the important part if that if the new FX parts are to compete with Intel's Extreme line(and notice, not the "K" line of unlocked cpus), memory performance, for me, must be equal or better.

You don't have to defend AMD on this...thier memory control sucks. If you want exacty compares, toss up some 1600mhz CAS 6 numbers, and I'll do the same, and we will see what the actual difference is, if you like. I mean, I could toss up my own screenshots...I do ahve many. but I'd rather post info from outside sources.

just because the intel has more MB/s in memory speed doesnt mean its faster for most applications, however.

I thought memory bandwidth was only a limit when an application needed more than is available, am i wrong to think this?

Musselsjust because the intel has more MB/s in memory speed doesnt mean its faster for most applications, however.

Yes, of course.

Multi-gpu rendering requires more system memory bandwidth, and hence Intel out-performing AMD with Crossfire.

I very specifically need it. So that thier CPUs can support thier GPUs like the competition does. Agasin, these are my own needs..not the needs of everyone.

cdawall is the only one trying to tell me that AMD is sufficient to meet my needs, when it's not. :laugh:

cadavecaI don't care about the cause behind performance deficits. it very simply is a deficit, and no explanation will make the performance different go away. I know very simply that a large part of the difference in bios perforamcne is either AGESA code changes, or subtimings. But neither is going to fix the performance gap.

And yes, I did link NOT the wrong graph. the fact of the matter is that I could NOT get the same speeds on AMD as I do on Intel, with the exact same sticks. But the link is there with 2000mhz numbers, anyway.

Anyway, the important part if that if the new FX parts are to compete with Intel's Extreme line(and notice, not the "K" line of unlocked cpus), memory performance, for me, must be equal or better.

You don't have to defend AMD on this...thier memory control sucks. If you want exacty compares, toss up some 1600mhz CAS 6 numbers, and I'll do the same, and we will see what the actual difference is, if you like. I mean, I could toss up my own screenshots...I do ahve many. but I'd rather post info from outside sources.

cadavecaYes, of course.

Multi-gpu rendering requires more system memory bandwidth, and hence Intel out-performing AMD with Crossfire.

I very specifically need it. So that thier CPUs can support thier GPUs like the competition does. Agasin, these are my own needs..not the needs of everyone.

cdawall is the only one trying to tell me that AMD is sufficient to meet my needs, when it's not. :laugh:

Dave....take your medicine. You are foaming at the mouth and your typing is becoming erratic. Let the children play.

New memory control will be better, but actual performance is yet to be seen as the only released info compares their 1866 dual Channel to an i7 Triple channel at 1066. That was a BS comparison.