|
Maxwell Adams posted:That page says there are two kinds of FX-8120, the only difference being the TDP. That seems a bit weird. TDP is actually important for Turbo Core purposes. If Bulldozer works like the A-series APU, then the TDP will provide an upper thermal and electrical limit for per-core overclocking, and it will not be possible to override or ignore this limit like with Turbo Boost on Intel CPUs. I'm guessing it will be configurable, ultimately, as AMD usually caters to enthusiasts that way, but for stock performance it can make quite the difference. E: Just looked it up, TDP will be configurable, and you can set a maximum TDP for automatic reclocking as an alternative to manual overclocking.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110901142352_Gigabyte_Accidentally_Reveals_AMD_s_FX_Launch_Lineup_Specs.html First chip to finally break the 4GHz barrier, officially. Last near-candidate was the 3.8GHz P4 570 in Nov 2004.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110901142352_Gigabyte_Accidentally_Reveals_AMD_s_FX_Launch_Lineup_Specs.html Power6 has had 4Ghz+ chips for awhile now or are you restricting discussion to x86?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:Power6 has had 4Ghz+ chips for awhile now or are you restricting discussion to x86? I'm sure he's talking about x86, since the PPC architecture isn't a meaningful consideration for personal use at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
Well, no luck for consumers but it looks like the Opteron 620 is shipping. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/95199-amd-ships-interlagos-16-core-bulldozer-cpu-but-wheres-zambezi
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
I was pretty optimistic about BD earlier on in the thread but I gave up waiting and give no fucks now. Microcenter had a hell of a deal on a i7 2600K + Z68 mobo bundle for less than $400 so I went that route instead. Yea the B3D guys think it was BS. They didn't give the prices but consensus in the thread was that XDR2 RAM was still too expensive. \/\/\/\/\//\/ PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Sep 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
Some weird news on the GPU front that I didn't see earlier: Nordic Hardware claims to have leaked specs and details for Radeon HD 7000-series cards, and that the Radeon HD 7900-series will use Rambus XDR2 memory, rather than GDDR5. The specs for the Radeon HD 7800-series are bang-on with expectations, basically the 6900-series die-shrunk to 28nm and slightly overclocked. I'm pretty skeptical both of the claims that the 7900-series uses XDR and that it would be manufactured at TSMC, I think the rumors up until now have been that it would use the Global Foundries 28nm process, since a ground-up redesign is a great time to switch to another fab.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 05:55
|
|
|
So if I'm reading the specs right, the mainstream Radeon HD 7670 and HD 7570 should roughly be as powerful as the Radeon HD 5700 and 6700 series yet maintain the heat and power profile of the lineup's predecessor. This sounds pretty awesome (though the whole lineup is looking good) especially when it makes its way to laptops. The desktop Radeon HD 5700 and 6700 series are particularly good at driving most modern games maxed out at 1680x1050 so the Mobility version of the HD 7670 and HD 7570 should do amazing at a resolution of 1600x900 and moderately well at 1920x1080. Throw that into a 14" or 15.6" laptop and you have a gaming notebook that is using a mainstream graphics card. That means it should cost less and have less absurd heat generation and power draw than current gaming notebooks. Though that probably won't be out until next spring or summer if the previous releases are anything to go by.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Some weird news on the GPU front that I didn't see earlier: Nordic Hardware claims to have leaked specs and details for Radeon HD 7000-series cards, and that the Radeon HD 7900-series will use Rambus XDR2 memory, rather than GDDR5. The specs for the Radeon HD 7800-series are bang-on with expectations, basically the 6900-series die-shrunk to 28nm and slightly overclocked. I'm pretty skeptical both of the claims that the 7900-series uses XDR and that it would be manufactured at TSMC, I think the rumors up until now have been that it would use the Global Foundries 28nm process, since a ground-up redesign is a great time to switch to another fab. Charlie Demerjian from SemiAccurate posted:Let me be blunt here, THERE IS NO XDR2 IN SI/HD7000/GCN. Trust me on this, the spec list floating is complete bull, and you can tell by who is re-posting it and who is not. Some people know, and they are being VERY quiet on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2011 12:07
|
|
|
Anandtech has a post detailing pricing and model lineup for the initial AMD Bulldozer FX launch. It looks like they're pushing the release date back until Q4, which starts in October. Intel plans to compete by releasing a Core i7 2700K CPU, which will take the top slot and push down pricing on the i7 2600K and i5 2500K.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Anandtech has a post detailing pricing and model lineup for the initial AMD Bulldozer FX launch. It looks like they're pushing the release date back until Q4, which starts in October. Intel plans to compete by releasing a Core i7 2700K CPU, which will take the top slot and push down pricing on the i7 2600K and i5 2500K. Intel seems like they're going to win this round on price as well as performance if that's the case. AMD's lowering of expectations from 50% clock for clock to 35% clock for clock isn't really comforting, but then they just haven't been especially forthcoming with performance details at all. I don't know how to feel about any of it except that I'm pissed that they're releasing a 2700K because I'd have bought that had I known it was coming in a few months. But, then, there's always something around the corner, no point trying to time the market. I'll wait for Ivy Bridge's second stepping after the overclockers.net folks have a go at it and toast some silicon before deciding on an upgrade path, if I do choose to move on from the 2600K to something socket-compatible rather than wait a few years to build a new computer as I've done in the past. I hope AMD's expectations management isn't ALL loving bad news. I can see the potential benefits of 256-bit floating point hardware in unison, it's frankly a bit cooler than Hyperthreading I think, but... Numbers. Well, I guess we'll get them sooner or later. Q4. Hell of a wait for this thing, and Intel's already prepared to push at the same time, I hope it isn't crap. Hope hope hope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
AMD fired their Senior Vice President and General Manager Rick Bergman, yikes http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amd-says-products-gm-bergman-is-leaving-company-2011-09-22 Charlie Demerjian is in full disaster mode http://semiaccurate.com/2011/09/23/analysis-rick-bergman-leaving-amd-has-no-up-side/
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
Bulldozer  marketing slides leaked:http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/galerileri/AMD-Bulldozer-FX-resmi-test-sonuclari_1.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
karoshi posted:Bulldozer Interesting, hope the benchmarks they show are accurate. Not sure if their top end part will be worth it, being priced over the i5 2500k. The slides showing the improvement against the Phenom X6 worry me, because there's not much performance there to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Interesting, hope the benchmarks they show are accurate. Not sure if their top end part will be worth it, being priced over the i5 2500k.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Their benchmarks are also against the i7 980X on the Intel side, and while that's a hex-core, it's not terribly competitive with the Sandy Bridge quad cores in most applications, especially gaming. I think Bulldozer is going to end up performing to expectations: unbeatable value in highly threaded applications, coming up short in most other applications. Turbo Core seems to be pretty effective, but performance-per-clock-per-core doesn't seem to be there, though I could be wrong. Bob Morales fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Sep 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Their benchmarks are also against the i7 980X on the Intel side, and while that's a hex-core, it's not terribly competitive with the Sandy Bridge quad cores in most applications, especially gaming. Well, "not competitive" tends to mean "equal performance for 4-5x the price", so this if this is accurate, it ends up meaning a good price/performance match for Sandy Bridge CPUs. From an enthusiast standpoint, which platform becomes the platform to buy depends on use-specific benchmarks, motherboard prices, and average overclocking performance. These FX chips are already being clocked fairly high, and AMD is claiming 5 GHz+ on air, but Sandy Bridge chips can do 5 GHz+ on air, too... if you get REALLY lucky in the chip lottery. It still remains to be seen whether there's as much headroom on the average FX chip as on the average i5-2500K.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
karoshi posted:Bulldozer This isn't good. A CPU that is - lest we forget - closing in on 2 years old, as the comparison for AMD's not yet released, high end processor? Sandy Bridge ALREADY gives you this kind of performance for the prices AMD are claiming. Sandy Bridge IS the lower priced competition for the 980x/990x. Sad, so very sad
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 14:54
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:This isn't good. A CPU that is - lest we forget - closing in on 2 years old, as the comparison for AMD's not yet released, high end processor? Remember the HD 4850? It was previewed before release because it was a 9800GTX killer and that was all that matters; AMD doesn't need to touch Nvidia's top-end to entice buyers. Same for the 4870 vs GTX 260. Same also goes for BD. Hardly anyone cares whether BD can compete against a $999 i7 990X or maybe even a 2600K. All AMD needs is a chip that can compete with the 2500K, which is the current top dog in price/performance. An $150 AMD chip that reaches within 90% of 2500K is already a winner. Now, if AMD had this winning chip, then why would they be so hush-hush on giving actual unbiased benchmarks but instead relying on lolmarketing? With no other reliable counter-evidence for now, plus the months of delays and delays, I can only conclude BD simply is to disappoint.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
It's a drat shame they haven't released results yet. We're within 3 weeks of the "finalized" October 12th, Q4 release, and there's nothing official. As stated before, that's an extremely disconcerting situation. I'm holing on to these next 2 weeks in hopes that something comes out, as I was about to build a new machine with BD this past month, of course it was delayed. Been ready to jump into an i5 2500K system instead, and prepare for an Ivy upgrade... but I'm still holding on to the hopes that AMD is keeping silent with big secrets... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:An $150 AMD chip that reaches within 90% of 2500K is already a winner. I agree with your conclusion, but I doubt this hypothetical $150 chip would be much of a winner for them anyway even if it was a runaway succes, considering the manufacturing cost to AMD because of the quite large BD die size. They really need a higher ASP for this generation. But yeah, it's about time we see some real drat benchmarks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 09:03
|
|
|
That's what kind of worries me, no benchmarks. You figure if they were beating the poo poo out of the Intel mainstream chips they would be all over it. I dont think this is the case, sadly. But yeah, I do agree that if their chips are anywhere close to 2600K and they can get them out for a cheap price, then yeah, its a winner. The thing thats always awesome with AMD is they dont change their sockets every drat year, so chances are if I buy an AM3+ system now, I could still upgrade processor when the next gen Bulldozer hits as well. Which IMO lends itself to a better more upgradeable system overall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 14:21
|
|
|
Peechka posted:
Uh, I don't agree with this "upgradeability" thing. History has shown provided you bought smart at the start, upgrading CPUs without changing the socket and mobo is a bad move for the money. For you case, you are also forgetting that buying AM3+ now means you also need to buy a current AMD CPU with worse performance/price than a 2500K no matter which you pick, and you are stuck with that level of performance until BD releases (assuming it doesn't get delayed again, and actually faster enough than current AMD offerings to justify the price) which also costs money to upgrade to. All in all, you might as well went 2500K in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
Well if I were to upgrade, I would wait for the new AMD chips, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
karoshi posted:Bulldozer Check out the AMD thread on hard forums. That site supposedly has a history of releasing fake info, and it looks like this is just more of the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
So any word on the 16core desktop bulldozers? last I heard they are going to come out in dec
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:So any word on the 16core desktop bulldozers? last I heard they are going to come out in dec I thought the new 16 core were the server Opterons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
Are we at the point with desktop software that >2 cores is providing a real performance leap, other than in media encoding? I'm sticking with my tri-core Athlon2, since all the 6-core phenom benchmarks don't show significant gains over what I have. I'm having a hard time getting excited for bulldozer, since it doesn't seem to be bringing anything new to the table with regard to super-fast all around performance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
Peechka posted:I thought the new 16 core were the server Opterons. I was fairly sure down the line they planned to push out a 16core desktop cpu
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
Civil posted:Are we at the point with desktop software that >2 cores is providing a real performance leap, other than in media encoding?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Properly-optimized PC games finally want a quad, yeah. Are they truly multi-threaded, or are they spreading individual tasks across up to (and only) four cores in a way they can still sync up at the end, like the older dual core optimized games did with the main gameplay on core 1 and then physics/AI/etc. that could be synced up on core 2? I've been wondering about that, are the games recommending quad core CPUs spreading the full workload or are they doing discrete threads for discrete tasks and bringing them together, sort of a ramped up version of the dual core usage? I know CPUs are really, really powerful these days, but could the games recommending 4 cores theoretically get a performance boost (were it required) from 6 or 8 or whatever, or are they still doing it the sort of compromise method rather than totally multi-threading the game itself?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Are they truly multi-threaded, or are they spreading individual tasks across up to (and only) four cores in a way they can still sync up at the end, like the older dual core optimized games did with the main gameplay on core 1 and then physics/AI/etc. that could be synced up on core 2? I've been wondering about that, are the games recommending quad core CPUs spreading the full workload or are they doing discrete threads for discrete tasks and bringing them together, sort of a ramped up version of the dual core usage? I know CPUs are really, really powerful these days, but could the games recommending 4 cores theoretically get a performance boost (were it required) from 6 or 8 or whatever, or are they still doing it the sort of compromise method rather than totally multi-threading the game itself? DX:HR seemed to like multiple cores, and I know that BF3 is recomended to have quad cores for recomended preformance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
Civil posted:I'm having a hard time getting excited for bulldozer, since it doesn't seem to be bringing anything new to the table with regard to super-fast all around performance. If Bulldozer is as fast as the 2600K or the 980x, then yeah, its something to get excited about because comparing your AthlonII x3 to the 2600K is like night and day. That is if its priced right to be cheaper than the Intel chips. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/202?vs=287
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
Rawrbomb posted:DX:HR seemed to like multiple cores, and I know that BF3 is recomended to have quad cores for recomended preformance. Yeah, but I'm wondering if that's just because they've got complex processes spread out in discrete threads with core affinity and then they sync it all up at the end, or if it's because the game is more deeply multi-threaded and could run just as well (thought experiment follows) on an 8-core system with half the clock per core, assuming clock for clock parity. In other words, multi-threaded, or quad-threaded? Programs that have long been multi-threaded and can take more or less linear advantage of additional cores tend not to have any uncertainties in the time domain. Rendering for example. Four cores at the same speed will be almost four times as fast as one core. Eight cores will be almost twice as fast as four cores. There's some overhead involved in managing the workload but it's not much. Games have to worry about syncing up unknown variables with a pretty short window in which to do so, and so past games just parceled out specific tasks that could more easily be synced up and gave them affinity on core 2, then they'd put it back together. I'm wondering it games that are using 4 cores are still doing that, but with cleverer discrete tasks, or if they're actually multi-threaded yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
Peechka posted:That's what kind of worries me, no benchmarks. You figure if they were beating the poo poo out of the Intel mainstream chips they would be all over it. I dont think this is the case, sadly. Actually the AM3/AM3+ socket has basically hit the end of the line, AMD has basically split their CPU lines with the whole fusion graphics thing which is why Llano runs on socket FM1 and not AM3+. Now next gen komodo and trinity will run on socket FM2. I wouldn't expect any backwards/forwards compatibility except Llano might be able to run on FM2. Hopefully AMD also switches to LGA with FM2 as they've been using it for their server sockets for a while already and I don't think they'd want to release another socket after FM2 for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
TheRevolution1 posted:Actually the AM3/AM3+ socket has basically hit the end of the line, AMD has basically split their CPU lines with the whole fusion graphics thing which is why Llano runs on socket FM1 and not AM3+. Now next gen komodo and trinity will run on socket FM2. I wouldn't expect any backwards/forwards compatibility except Llano might be able to run on FM2. Hopefully AMD also switches to LGA with FM2 as they've been using it for their server sockets for a while already and I don't think they'd want to release another socket after FM2 for a while. I don't think anyone ever expected the AM2/AM3 family of sockets to last forever, but by the time it retires it will be a good six years of continuity where buying AMD meant an excellent chance to be able to just upgrade to a newer and much faster processor a year or two later in convenient drop-in fashion, or to replace a dead motherboard with a new and updated model without worrying whether you're two months away from a major CPU release or price cut. That's a nice quality of life thing as a system builder, so it was good when it lasted, and even if FM2 is a totally clean break I hope it leads to a similar long-term chain of incremental upgrades on the new platform.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:I don't think anyone ever expected the AM2/AM3 family of sockets to last forever, but by the time it retires it will be a good six years of continuity where buying AMD meant an excellent chance to be able to just upgrade to a newer and much faster processor a year or two later in convenient drop-in fashion, or to replace a dead motherboard with a new and updated model without worrying whether you're two months away from a major CPU release or price cut. That's a nice quality of life thing as a system builder, so it was good when it lasted, and even if FM2 is a totally clean break I hope it leads to a similar long-term chain of incremental upgrades on the new platform. Yeah I know, I was just informing him that he shouldn't expect to be able to upgrade past 1st gen bulldozer on AM3+. To be honest, people always seem to complain about new sockets when most of the time there's no need to buy a new mobo/cpu every time a new socket is released. Core2duo/quads still hold up pretty well even now so people who bought them can go buy a sandy bridge CPU/mobo now while having skipped the last generation of sockets, and if they don't use their pc for gaming/as a workstation they could probably hold out till the next sockets as well. I built a i5-2500k based pc a few months ago and while it's nice to know that ivy bridge will be LGA 1155 compatible I doubt the performance boost will be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:I was fairly sure down the line they planned to push out a 16core desktop cpu That will be further down the track. They currently don't have enough production or yield to sell any desktop bulldozer processors. Also, the largest desktop cpus on the bulldozer roadmap have 4 cores/8 cpus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:I was fairly sure down the line they planned to push out a 16core desktop cpu
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Alereon posted:There really isn't anything on the desktop that could use 8 cores, much less 16. The 16-core Opteron Bulldozers will be made using two 8-core dies, which has the added benefit of providing a quad-channel connection to the memory, which is quite necessary for servers. yeah I kinda need the 16cores for my virtualization
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 02:46
|
|