|
OK so according to the new CEO desktop BD will be coming in June, servers will be "late" summer. Rumor mill was close but still off by a fair amount then. 5 months though to wait, sheesh AMD.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Aren't games FP heavy? And what about preprocessing in the graphics drivers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Aren't games FP heavy? And what about preprocessing in the graphics drivers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 03:37
|
|
|
I lose more and more faith with AMD as the years go by. I've got a Sandy Bridge machine, it's loving fast. 5GHz on air. How can AMD target this (FX? Really?) when they are looking at releasing half a year later (just in time for Intel to release a die shrink, or something) and you can buy a 2500k for $225 right now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
Either they'll beat it somehow in performance (unlikely) or they'll kinda close and sell it for less (way more likely). Still no word on pricing though and all we have for performance is some shady rumors and JF's statement that it'll have higher IPC than PhenomII. Supposed to be some sort of conference AMD is gonna do in late Feb. Should have more info. by then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
Here's an Xbitlabs article with more details on the Bulldozer delay and the accelerated release of the Llano series of APUs. AMD's spin appears to be "it's not a delay because we said it would launch in Q2 and it's still going to launch in Q2. Barely." This sounds like a Bulldozer-related problem, because Brazos is launching on-time and consistent with conservative expectations, and it seems like Llano will be launching ahead of schedule on the same Global Foundaries 32nm process, despite the fact that it's basically a new platform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 09:33
|
|
|
Yea, whole thing smacks of "something went really wrong but we're not gonna say what". At this point I'm expecting more delays for BD, which is really bad for AMD. e: Also this is apparently fake info. on BD. Hopefully there won't be as many fakes with BD as there was with the 6xxx GPU's. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 14:28
|
|
|
Thread's been dead for a while but then there hasn't been much good info. for a while either. That seems to have changed in the last couple of weeks. We seem to be getting current 8xx chipset based boards that can support BD coming soon, in April. The mobo shown looks like a high end exxtreme version that'll cost probably north of $200, but hopefully they'll have some more sanely priced versions out too. This is kinda old now too but hasn't been brought up. Looks like we can expect some 3.5Ghz 16 thread BD's that'll fit in the same power envelope as current 12 thread Opteron's running at 2.6Ghz or so. Turbo supposedly might add another 500Mhz or more to that, but no word on the power/work load requirements for when/how Turbo kicks in or how many cores will use it at a given speed. Still no word on per clock performance though. e: 9xx is supposed to be a minor refresh of the 8xx chipset, much like how the 8xx chipset was a minor refresh of the 7xx chipset. Best you could hope for is better performance with SSD's and PCIe performance but its not clear if we'll get even that.\/\/\/\/\/ PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Mar 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
Still waiting... but gently caress 890, bring on 990fx.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
So is Bulldozer going to be worth waiting for or are they going to be a generation behind Intel again? I really want competitiveness between Intel and AMD again so Intel doesn't price gouge their chips.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:So is Bulldozer going to be worth waiting for or are they going to be a generation behind Intel again? I really want competitiveness between Intel and AMD again so Intel doesn't price gouge their chips. Honestly, I'm still with AMD because I can pick up 85-90% of the ability for around 50% of the price. I can match if I spend 80% of the price of the equivalent Intel processor. I picked up a Phenom X4 II 3.6Ghz for $100 a few weeks ago. Even with having to Upgrade the Motherboard, RAM, and Processor all at one, I only shelled out $300. The equivalent-performance i7 (2.6Ghz, model number I can't remember) was $290 for just the processor itself. For that kind of price difference, I can happily lose that 15-20% performance Edit: 3.4 Ghz. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
I just updated the first post a bit, tell me if I missed any news.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
Nothing BD related though there is a nifty quick n' dirty video demo of Llano that was done recently. Will get whipped soundly CPU wise of course by SB, but the video showed it getting around nearly double the fps in games while using around 10-20w less than a 2Ghz quad core SB part. No clue on clockspeed or pricing yet, but its a AthlonII derivative so clocks/performance will likely be similar at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 13:57
|
|
|
Are we still looking at a June release for Bulldozer and will they have budget chips available then? Imagine an Athlon III X8 chip for $100.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
June is for the Performance/Mid-Range. Think the line-equivalent to the /i[5|7]-2\d00\w/ models. (Wow, that was nerdy.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Nonpython posted:June is for the Performance/Mid-Range. Think the line-equivalent to the /i[5|7]-2\d00\w/ models. (Wow, that was nerdy.) If this were facebook I'd like that pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
I'd be fine with all the Bulldozer-related drama if you didn't have games seemingly being coded more to favor Intel/NVIDIA.  (i.e. Blops on PC requiring NVIDIA cards for 3D.)Still running an ol' AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (5050e?) 2.6 GHz dual-core here...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
Chortles posted:Still running an ol' AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (5050e?) 2.6 GHz dual-core here... 2.1 GHz C2D with intergrated graphics. Any game more intense than minesweeper makes me cry. I can't wait for Bulldozer to come out, I'll be all over it like a fat kid on pancakes because I am done with intel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
I bought a little AMD stock a couple years ago when it was less than $5 a share. Now it's about $9. When the new hardware comes out, I could make a few extra bucks. I am running a AMD Athlon II X4 635 Propus 2.9GHz, and I love it ($100.49). But I would also love getting a time-cheapened new Phenom. Ema Nymton fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Mar 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
Ema Nymton posted:I bought a little AMD stock a couple years ago when it was less than $5 a share. Now it's about $9. When the new hardware comes out, I could make a few extra bucks. Same here on owning AMD stock. I've had it for literally years and I keep wanting to see them get a Win in here and there, not only for the potential profit, but also to keep Intel on their toes and help keep the market fair. I'm still running an E6600 C2D though. I miss the old Athlon 64 days sometimes
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
They just run hot and cold. Real strong for a few years, and then they get stomped for a while. Probably just a by-product of product cycles in their industry. They're due to get hot again soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:They just run hot and cold. Real strong for a few years, and then they get stomped for a while. Probably just a by-product of product cycles in their industry. They're due to get hot again soon. The only time they've ever been "real strong" was due to intel's colossal misstep with the pentium4.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:They just run hot and cold. Real strong for a few years, and then they get stomped for a while. Probably just a by-product of product cycles in their industry. They're due to get hot again soon. More like a byproduct of all the anticompetitive poo poo Intel pulled to keep AMD from getting the profits they needed and deserved back during the Intel Netburst era when AMD had the better hardware. If you'll recall Intel just settled with about everyone last year to keep from going to court over the stuff. Amd, Department of Justice, etc...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
Not bulldozer, but question relating to the new poo poo from AMD. Per clock, can I expect similar performance between an ontario/zacate/llano platform as I can get from PhenomII/AthlonII? I am considering replacing my fileserver, which is currently a 45W AM2 Athlon x2 1.9GHz. If I can replace this with an APU that consumes only 18W, and not have to worry about performance, it's worth it to me (my office has terrible air flow and it gets warm in there). If it goes well I might even replace my VMware server as well (Athlon X2 2.5GHz) since it rarely caps out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
adorai posted:Not bulldozer, but question relating to the new poo poo from AMD. Per clock, can I expect similar performance between an ontario/zacate/llano platform as I can get from PhenomII/AthlonII? I am considering replacing my fileserver, which is currently a 45W AM2 Athlon x2 1.9GHz. If I can replace this with an APU that consumes only 18W, and not have to worry about performance, it's worth it to me (my office has terrible air flow and it gets warm in there). If it goes well I might even replace my VMware server as well (Athlon X2 2.5GHz) since it rarely caps out. That is true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:The only time they've ever been "real strong" was due to intel's colossal misstep with the pentium4. Intel can always make another colossal misstep. We succeed in spite of engineering more often than because of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
Raptop posted:Intel can always make another colossal misstep. We succeed in spite of engineering more often than because of it. Sure, I was just making the point that AMD doesn't cyclically rise and fall competitively as Bob Morales was claiming- they've always existed in the low-mid range and they had a 2 year stretch where they got the high end because Intel decided to let their marketing department tell the engineers how to design a processor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 11:09
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:The only time they've ever been "real strong" was due to intel's colossal misstep with the pentium4. Their 386s ran at higher clocks than Intel's... They extended the life of the Socket 7 platform at a low cost which was very popular at the time... They also introduced the first 1GHz consumer CPU.. They were strongest notably when they came up x86-64 instructions, and Intel then licenced them from AMD, and yeah, Pentium 4 was a bit of a clusterfuck with a dead end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 11:45
|
|
|
adorai posted:Not bulldozer, but question relating to the new poo poo from AMD. Per clock, can I expect similar performance between an ontario/zacate/llano platform as I can get from PhenomII/AthlonII? I am considering replacing my fileserver, which is currently a 45W AM2 Athlon x2 1.9GHz. If I can replace this with an APU that consumes only 18W, and not have to worry about performance, it's worth it to me (my office has terrible air flow and it gets warm in there). If it goes well I might even replace my VMware server as well (Athlon X2 2.5GHz) since it rarely caps out. Zacate/Ontario is around 10% slower per clock than AthlonII. Llano will perform nearly the same as AthlonII per clock since its the same core but shrunk down to 32nm. The Llano used in the demo I linked a ways up the page was apparently a 1.8Ghz dual core version FWIW. greasyhands posted:The only time they've ever been "real strong" was due to intel's colossal misstep with the pentium4. Looks like AMD has finalized the shipping date of BD and Llano, so no more rumors, late June (20th) is the shipping date. Given the "FX" branding the chips are getting these will probably be high end expensive parts. Which is both good and bad I guess. Good because AMD has something that may compete with Intel's best, bad because they'll probably price it accordingly. Oh well, they'll still have to contend with the ~$200 i5-2500K somehow so I'm guessing they won't go too crazy with the pricing. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
AMD was at par or kicked Intel's rear end in peformance and price/performance metrics basically from 1999 to 2006, excepting 2002/early 2003 when T-Breds and Bartons kind of got left in the dust by Northwood P4s. Intel's blunders didn't start with netburst, they started with backing Rambus as a platform for P3s and P4s instead of DDR like AMD did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
AMD's 386DX40 was an incredibly popular CPU for years. Even a year after launch, it was over $1000 cheaper than the 486SX/25 but about on par performance wise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:36
|
|
|
 New infamashun tiem! BD's FX line has a real release date! June 20th is the proclamation from AMD. Xbitlabs posted:AMD plans to release four eight-core AMD FX8000-series chips, two six-core AMD FX6000-series microprocessors and two quad-core AMD FX4000-series central processing units (CPUs) this year; four chips are to be launched in Q2 2011, another four processors will be introduced in Q4 2011.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 12:28
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:They also introduced the first 1GHz consumer CPU.. ...and that directly led to Intel's MORE JIGGAHERTZ AT ALL COSTS Pentium 4s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:...and that directly led to Intel's MORE JIGGAHERTZ AT ALL COSTS Pentium 4s. More directly to the 1.13 GHz Coppermine P3s, which were absolute poo poo and severely damaged Intel's reputation. Not to mention that is was only supported on one Intel platform that used RDRAM (another of Intel's disasterous mistakes).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Nostrum posted:More directly to the 1.13 GHz Coppermine P3s, which were absolute poo poo and severely damaged Intel's reputation. Not to mention that is was only supported on one Intel platform that used RDRAM (another of Intel's disasterous mistakes). Wait a minute, the way I remember it RDRAM was used in the early P4 platforms, which was then tossed to one side in favour of PC133, and later DDR. But the P3s were still PC133.. I did have a 1GHz P3, or was it a 1GHz P3 Celeron, either way, it used PC133, and it was absolutely awesome. I overclocked it to 1.45GHz and it was stable all day long. Infact, the only reason I replaced it was because the MSI board had.. bad caps! yay! a real shame, because the board had better loving fan control than my current board, and I'd probably use it to this day as a file server if it was still working. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Mar 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Wait a minute, the way I remember it RDRAM was used in the early P4 platforms, which was then tossed to one side in favour of PC133, and later DDR. Nope, RDRAM started with the buggy, lovely i820 chipset which was a socket 370 platform. The Tualatin (130nm) core P3s and Celerons were great, as was the i815 chipset which was PC133. I did the same thing you did, a 1.1 Tualatin celeron overclocked to 1.4.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
RDRAM first debuted on the i820 chipset for the Coppermine Pentium IIIs. The 1.13Ghz .18micron Coppermine P3 was disastrous because it didn't actually work, certain intensive workloads caused the CPU to error out without additional voltage. The Tualatin P3s (using the .13micron process with copper interconnects instead of aluminum) were pretty excellent processors since they overclocked well, had up to 512KB of full-speed L2, and ran pretty cool. The only problem was that by that time the Thunderbird was out so the Tualatin was only interesting for its mobile processors or if you were married to Intel for some reason. The really lovely thing about the early P3s/P4s that used RDRAM was that PC133 compatibility was provided via a Memory Translator Hub that added additional latency and overhead, and also turned out to be broken as poo poo resulting in recalls and free replacements with RDRAM (seriously every other generation Intel fucks up their platform somehow and they still have reputations as the gods of QA and reliability). The P4 sucked a lot less by the time the i875P brought dual-channel DDR to the platform, combining the high memory bandwidth of RDRAM with the low latency of SDRAM. By this time the Pentium 4 HT was out with a faster 800Mhz FSB, HyperThreading, and more cache, but without the horrible power leakage of the later Prescott processors. Bonus Edit: And I got beaten a little on the Tualatin/i820 stuff, that's what I get for getting distracted reading about the old K75 processors with their variable L2 cache clockspeeds :P
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Basically if Intel had released an updated 440BX chipset with ATA-66 support and official 133FSB support AMD wouldn't have made nearly the gains it made in 2000, VIA wouldn't have made a fuckton of money making chipsets, etc etc etc. Backing Rambus technology was a bigger mistake than the netburst uarch. In fact, really the only big problem with netburst was that it lived about 2 years too long, and that's because no one anticipated hitting the 4GHz wall. Think about it, its been 6 years since netburst was retired and we still don't have CPUs clocking that high. Stuff like Tejas was supposed to be hitting 25GHz by now if you look at old intel roadmaps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
AMD was also given a golden ticket by nVidia; I would be willing to bet that there are still a ton of people out there running A7N8X motherboards with a Barton 3500+.quote:Basically if Intel had released an updated 440BX chipset with ATA-66 support and official 133FSB support They did, the i815. It was too little, too late though. forbidden dialectics fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Mar 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
It would be really interesting to see a complete timeline of chipset and platform fuckups from Intel, AMD, Via, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 21:31
|
|
