Go Back   Rage3D » Rage3D Discussion Area » Gaming and Computing Forums » General Hardware
Rage3D Subscribe Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General Hardware Talk about PCs/Macs, motherboards, CPUs, sound cards, RAM, hard drives, networking and everything else about computer hardware!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jan 24, 2011, 12:43 PM   #1
Advertisement (Guests Only)

Login or Register to remove this ad
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default Something about bulldozer....

Now some time ago,an article stated that bulldozer would be 50% faster than an i7 CPU,but this time,there's more details regarding to what i7 it was compared to and some of the workloads involved,wich might be an official AMD slide or not :





Basically,an 8 core bulldozer is being compared to a 4 core i7 950,and the current top end of AMD's line up,the X6 1100t,and the biggest boost seems to come from rendering workloads,not media or gaming,so i'm not that impressed to be honest given that it's an 8 core chip versus a 4 core i7 950,and that the current i7 980x is being left out of the comparison entirely,and that when bulldozer is finally released,it might have to deal with an 8 core sandy bridge chip on socket 2011....


http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...s-dokumani.htm


Translation follows:

Quote:
AMD's recently worked on for five years you shared this with the first information about the performance of the new generation architecture of the Bulldozer. AMD is published for the first time in the world after the information, prepared for the Zambezi code Adii Scorpius platform carrying the official documentation of the 8-core processor, we reached the Bulldozer.


Hidden confidentiality clause, this document, prepared by the 8-core AMD Bulldozer processor for desktop systems include the performance prediction. Visi Black FX series from AMD is expected to be available under the document prepared for the 8-core processor, PCMark, 3DMark 06 Cinbench and performance projections are made for testing.


Performance data is useful to recall briefly before moving to the Bulldozer processor family. 32nm process technology a new generation processor family, will be in the form of + and 9 series chipset with Socket AM3 motherboards will be used. Turbo Core processors are equipped with 2.0 dynamic core management technology also will support a modern command sets.


1MB L2 for each core and between cores for use in common, including memory capacity 8MB L3 16MB memory capacity of 8-core processors is expected to be the Bulldozer .. Bulldozer unknown 8-core AMD processor clock speed according to the table prepared, PCMark'ın TV & Movies subtest II X6 and 6-core Phenom quad-core Core i7-950 1100T and was able to become faster, the main difference, offering multi-core support Cinebnech R11.5 'seen in the rendering test and the Bulldozer processor 8-core processor also significantly faster than both see that. 3DMark 2006 CPU test days at the bottom of the game as a test 8-core processor seriously have made a difference, and a total of Bulldozer, AMD's fastest processor, the Phenom, and Intel's Core i7-950 1100T II X6 processor manages to be faster by 50%.


ICN-volume production to begin in April, such as processors, AMD's Bulldozer and the deportation of the period after the official launch is expected by the market.

Real or fake???....
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 12:49 PM   #2
caveman-jim
Deposed King of Rage3D
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 48,940
caveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badges


Default

that graph says 50% faster than 1100T in gaming.
caveman-jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 12:54 PM   #3
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caveman-jim View Post
that graph says 50% faster than 1100T in gaming.

The bars have 3 different colors,each for a different type of workload,with the biggest difference being on rendering programs(cinebench R11.5),wich is pretty much expected since the program will use all available cores,and bulldozer has 8 of them afterall....


Since media and gaming doesn't use that many cores,the differences are smaller there overall.....Gaming is the lighter colored section,while media is the darkest of all.

Last edited by shadow001 : Jan 24, 2011 at 12:56 PM.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertisement (Guests Only)
Login or Register to remove this ad
Old Jan 24, 2011, 12:58 PM   #4
Hapatingjaky
Maximum Disappointment
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada New Ukraine
Posts: 9,604
Hapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling fresh


Default

I honestly don't see the Bulldozer doing much of anything, sure, it will be faster, better power effeciencey etc etc. But lets be honest here, a canned AMD slide ( not known if its from AMD ) claiming 1.5x the performance. Reading the small print, Gaming performance based on 3DMark06 a five year old syntheticate benchmark. I don't know about the rest of you but last time I checked 3DMark is not a game???

Then we need to ask, whats the Bulldozer clocked at? Was HT enabled on the core i7, why was a 6 core i7 970 or 980x not used? Why not compare a SandyBridge 2600k? Why is the Core i7 950 listed as a socket 1156 item

So then after going over the screenshot everything becomes clear that its probably a fake.

The X68 and 6/8 Core Intel product line won't be available till later 2011 ( Q4 ). Bulldozer will be available in a few months. So we'll see what happens then.
__________________
Intel Core i9 10900K @ 5.2GHz, Asus Maximus XII Apex, GSkill Trident-Z Royal DDR4 3200MHz 32GB CAS11, EVGA FTW3 2080Ti Sixtuple SLI, Creative Labs SXFI Theater, Samsung 970 Evo Plus 1TB, Corsair AXI 1500i PSU, ThermalTake View 71, Corsair K95 Platinum RGB, Corsair Dark Core RGB SE, Acer Predator X34, Windows 10 Professional X64
Hapatingjaky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 01:01 PM   #5
DaJMasta
Baffoonist
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United States Silver Spring, Maryland
Posts: 14,273
DaJMasta doesn't need no stinkin' badgesDaJMasta doesn't need no stinkin' badgesDaJMasta doesn't need no stinkin' badgesDaJMasta doesn't need no stinkin' badgesDaJMasta doesn't need no stinkin' badgesDaJMasta doesn't need no stinkin' badgesDaJMasta doesn't need no stinkin' badgesDaJMasta doesn't need no stinkin' badgesDaJMasta doesn't need no stinkin' badges


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow001 View Post
The bars have 3 different colors,each for a different type of workload,with the biggest difference being on rendering programs(cinebench R11.5),wich is pretty much expected since the program will use all available cores,and bulldozer has 8 of them afterall....


Since media and gaming doesn't use that many cores,the differences are smaller there overall.....Gaming is the lighter colored section,while media is the darkest of all.

I wouldn't say 50%, but by their graph the gaming aspect is still 30% faster than the i7 or the X6. While I agree the performance could be more impressive, if they picked gaming benchmarks that didn't scale across the additional cores, the clockspeed or performance per clock or both have been substantially increased.
__________________
Desktop: Intel Core i7 7770k : 16GB EVGA DDR4 2400 : Gigabyte GTX 1070 Ti Windforce X2 : Gigabyte GA-H270-WIFI : AudioQuest DragonFly DAC : Samsung SM961 NVMe 1TB SSD : Corsair Builder 500W PSU : Samsung 1440p 32" Monitor : Klipsch Promedia 2.1 : Windows 10 Pro x64
Tablet: Microsoft Surface Pro 4 : Intel Core i5-6300U : 8GB DDR3 : Intel 520 Integrated : 256GB SSD : 12.3" 2736x1824 display : Windows 10 Pro x64
HTPC: Intel Core i3 3225 : HD 4000 integrated : 8GB Samsung DDR3 1600 : Gigabyte H77N-Wifi : 120GB Sandisk Extreme SSD : 80W power brick and picoPSU150 XT : Integrated HD Audio : Scepter 32" LCD TV : Logitech Z313 2.1 : Windows 7 Pro x64


DaJMasta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 01:12 PM   #6
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapatingjaky View Post
I honestly don't see the Bulldozer doing much of anything, sure, it will be faster, better power effeciencey etc etc. But lets be honest here, a canned AMD slide ( not known if its from AMD ) claiming 1.5x the performance. Reading the small print, Gaming performance based on 3DMark06 a five year old syntheticate benchmark. I don't know about the rest of you but last time I checked 3DMark is not a game???

Then we need to ask, whats the Bulldozer clocked at? Was HT enabled on the core i7, why was a 6 core i7 970 or 980x not used? Why not compare a SandyBridge 2600k? Why is the Core i7 950 listed as a socket 1156 item

So then after going over the screenshot everything becomes clear that its probably a fake.

The X68 and 6/8 Core Intel product line won't be available till later 2011 ( Q4 ). Bulldozer will be available in a few months. So we'll see what happens then.

True,the clock speeds for the bulldozer chip aren't known,and they did make that mistake with the i7 950 being a socket 1156 CPU,when it's a socket 1366 one,and we don't even know if hyperthreading was enabled on not in the i7 or compared against faster Intel chips...


It could be that bulldozer will retail for roughly the same prices as the X6 1100T and the i7 950 though,wich clock in at 300$ and 350$ respectively in my neck of the woods,so that would make the chart more meaningfull in that respect(cost).


But if it does take an 8 core bulldozer to beat previous generation processors with 4~6 cores,what will happen when intel releases an 8 core sandy bridge based processor?....
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 01:21 PM   #7
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJMasta View Post
I wouldn't say 50%, but by their graph the gaming aspect is still 30% faster than the i7 or the X6. While I agree the performance could be more impressive, if they picked gaming benchmarks that didn't scale across the additional cores, the clockspeed or performance per clock or both have been substantially increased.

Even the gaming results leave doubts not because of the results themselves,but mostly at what settings were used,and let's face it,3Dmark 06 is old news here and not a game in the least.


Push graphics settings hard enough with lots of AA and AF and in game options maxed out,and unless you have a monster multi GPU setup,it'll be the video card that will definitely flinch first,so are the graphics settings set low enough not to be bottlenecked by the video card,and allow the performance differences between different CPU's to shine the most?


The chart does bring up some good questions to say the least...
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 01:34 PM   #8
Hapatingjaky
Maximum Disappointment
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada New Ukraine
Posts: 9,604
Hapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling freshHapatingjaky kills 99.99% of germs and leaves hands feeling fresh


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow001 View Post
Even the gaming results leave doubts not because of the results themselves,but mostly at what settings were used,and let's face it,3Dmark 06 is old news here and not a game in the least.


Push graphics settings hard enough with lots of AA and AF and in game options maxed out,and unless you have a monster multi GPU setup,it'll be the video card that will definitely flinch first,so are the graphics settings set low enough not to be bottlenecked by the video card,and allow the performance differences between different CPU's to shine the most?


The chart does bring up some good questions to say the least...
Looking at the chart, it looks as if its doubled the gaming performance, I honestly can't see that happening unless the Bulldozer was OC'd pretty high.
__________________
Intel Core i9 10900K @ 5.2GHz, Asus Maximus XII Apex, GSkill Trident-Z Royal DDR4 3200MHz 32GB CAS11, EVGA FTW3 2080Ti Sixtuple SLI, Creative Labs SXFI Theater, Samsung 970 Evo Plus 1TB, Corsair AXI 1500i PSU, ThermalTake View 71, Corsair K95 Platinum RGB, Corsair Dark Core RGB SE, Acer Predator X34, Windows 10 Professional X64
Hapatingjaky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 01:35 PM   #9
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default

And another picture from that same site:





Seems to be an engineering sample using socket G34 with some details intentionally covered up but the clock speed is revealed as well as a windows prime result....Real or fake?

Last edited by shadow001 : Jan 24, 2011 at 04:40 PM.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 01:41 PM   #10
FX-Overclocking
Radeon Arctic Islands
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,092
FX-Overclocking once held a door open for a complete strangerFX-Overclocking once held a door open for a complete strangerFX-Overclocking once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caveman-jim View Post
that graph says 50% faster than 1100T in gaming.
Yeah, but that same graph has an 1100T as fast as a 950 i7 lol, I'm not stupid... I call BS.
__________________
---------------------------------------------
Ron Paul for Prez.
---------------------------------------------

Persistence is the first, and the most important, condition for success.

"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal." - F.A. Hayek
FX-Overclocking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 01:42 PM   #11
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hapatingjaky View Post
Looking at the chart, it looks as if its doubled the gaming performance, I honestly can't see that happening unless the Bulldozer was OC'd pretty high.

More like 30% higher(lighter colored bar,the last one),but even then,3Dmark 06 is old news and a joke to run on modern hardware,but pretty much what one would need to make sure the end result isn't bottlenecked by the video card...It's still a benchmark that unless i'm not mistaken,doesn't use more than 2 cores thru all the tests.


It would be more representative if the result was acheived with 3Dmark 11 and looking at the CPU test run specifically,wich will use all the hardware in that CPU to the max.....My 980x at 4.6 Ghz with hyperthreading enabled,does 32 FPS in that test.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 01:59 PM   #12
Sasquach
2/10 will not bang
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada Cowtown
Posts: 26,062
Sasquach doesn't need no stinkin' badgesSasquach doesn't need no stinkin' badgesSasquach doesn't need no stinkin' badgesSasquach doesn't need no stinkin' badgesSasquach doesn't need no stinkin' badgesSasquach doesn't need no stinkin' badgesSasquach doesn't need no stinkin' badgesSasquach doesn't need no stinkin' badgesSasquach doesn't need no stinkin' badges


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow001 View Post
True,the clock speeds for the bulldozer chip aren't known,and they did make that mistake with the i7 950 being a socket 1156 CPU,when it's a socket 1366 one,and we don't even know if hyperthreading was enabled on not in the i7 or compared against faster Intel chips...


It could be that bulldozer will retail for roughly the same prices as the X6 1100T and the i7 950 though,wich clock in at 300$ and 350$ respectively in my neck of the woods,so that would make the chart more meaningfull in that respect(cost).


But if it does take an 8 core bulldozer to beat previous generation processors with 4~6 cores,what will happen when intel releases an 8 core sandy bridge based processor?....
wasnt there mention of sandy bridge being capped at 4 cores only?
__________________
------Squachbox 2.0------
Gigabyte 3D Aurora 570 full size aluminum chassis
PC Power & Cooling Silencer Quad Blue 750watt PSU
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X @ 3.6ghz
Asus Prime B450M A/CSM
2 x 8GB G-Skill DDR4 2666
Dell E2210 (22" widescreen) monitor + AMD Radeon R9 290
Seagate Barracuda 500gb 7200.12 SATA
Seagate Barracuda 2TB SATA
Sennheiser PC350 Xense edition headset
Sasquach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 02:08 PM   #13
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow001 View Post
And another picture from that same site:





Seems to be an engineering sample using socket G34 with some details intentionally covered up but the clock speed is revealed as well as a windows prime result....Real or fake?

Well,i compared it with my CPU running 12 threads and it's a 980x at 4.6 Ghz water cooled and with a serious voltage bump,under windows prime at the same settings,and it's not even close to the above result....It got owned in other words


shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 02:12 PM   #14
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquach View Post
wasnt there mention of sandy bridge being capped at 4 cores only?

Something has yet to replace the 6 core,triple memory channel gulftowns at the high end,and given that Intel is pretty much done with the development of their 22nm fab process,making an 8 core/16 thread version of sandy bridge using that new 2011 pin socket of theirs for the high end enthusiast market isn't out of the question from a technical standpoint....
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 02:16 PM   #15
Alkali
Zooey Deschanel
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United Kingdom England
Posts: 1,830
Alkali is still being judged by the masses


Default

Whether the slide is a fake or not, I can't say it would suprise me, or that it bothers me.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
__________________
Home Theatre & HiFi
Living Room: Sony EX504 LCD, Sony S760B Blu, Yamaha 7.1 Amp, Mission m74/m7c2/m72i/m71i, MJ Acoustics Ref400
PC: Marantz PM6003, Monitor Audio BX1's, Silver Anniversary, QED J2P

Asus ATi 6950HD Asus Crosshair IV Formula AMD PhenomII X6 1100T G.Skill 2x2GB 1.6Ghz (F3-12800CL7D-4GBECO)
Playing: Rift, EVE-Online
Anticipating: Guildwars 2, BF3, BF1943
Alkali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 03:18 PM   #16
jlpktnst
Radeon R520
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Slovenia Slovenia
Posts: 378
jlpktnst is still being judged by the masses


Default

But still, how much does a HT core add performance-wise in real world? 20%? I much prefer the real cores from amd @ lower prices and with cheaper mobos If they can at least make the mid-range or higher mid with decent prices I stay red. Bleeding edge was always too pricy.

On the other hand I WANT MOAR INFO
jlpktnst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 03:49 PM   #17
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpktnst View Post
But still, how much does a HT core add performance-wise in real world? 20%? I much prefer the real cores from amd @ lower prices and with cheaper mobos If they can at least make the mid-range or higher mid with decent prices I stay red. Bleeding edge was always too pricy.

On the other hand I WANT MOAR INFO

True,hyperthreading on each core isn't the same as having extra physical cores since it uses resources within each core that aren't being used at that specific point in time,so there can be resource sharing issues and scheduling conflicts at hand,but on the other hand,having more physical cores than competitors,also requires having the latest fab processes in order to make those processors in high volume,with reasonable die sizes and at anything even close to resembling affordable pricing,and keeping power/thermals under check as well....


So the question is can AMD do better while still using the 32nm process and potentially fewer cores than intel can at the 22nm process,since it seems there will be sandy bridge parts with 8 cores in that process,and even Ivy bridge parts with up to 10 cores using the 22nm process as well....


If both companies had the same fab process for their upcoming parts,and the same number of cores as well,then we'd have to consider the overall efficiency of the architecture to determine the overall winner here,but with Intel having 22nm available soon,they simply have options available that AMD doesn't,and it might be a long while before AMD even has it's own 22nm process up and running and in volume production....


I'm sure that bulldozer will obviously be faster than anything that AMD has right now,but to get back to claiming the top spot even in the enthusiast market is another matter altogether,as the last time they were there,you have to go back to the athlon 64/FX/64 X2 days,and intel was stuck with the crappy pentium 4,and that goes back about 6 years ago.....Intel hasn't been challenged in the high end since.

Last edited by shadow001 : Jan 24, 2011 at 03:52 PM.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 04:42 PM   #18
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default




Looking at the information over again,i'd think this is basically a dual die processor,with each die being an 8 core bulldozer in the same processor package.....Packing 16 cores and 28MB of cache into a single die at 32nm would lead to an enourmous processor that would be extremely expensive to say the least,and the G34 socket looks something like this:



We can see the size of the socket(almost 2000 pins) and that it uses 8 memory slots per socket,so it could be a quad memory channel setup for each socket by looking at the colors on each memory slot(one white,one black)...
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 05:44 PM   #19
caveman-jim
Deposed King of Rage3D
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 48,940
caveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badgescaveman-jim doesn't need no stinkin' badges


Default

yeah, all this is known at this point - there is an mcm version, and a single die version. server has quad channel memory. it's compatible with existing server sockets.

bulldozer blog series has a lot of this info already. http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/08/02...ulldozer-blog/
caveman-jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 07:07 PM   #20
shadow001
Captain thread derail....
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,219
shadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete strangershadow001 once held a door open for a complete stranger


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caveman-jim View Post
yeah, all this is known at this point - there is an mcm version, and a single die version. server has quad channel memory. it's compatible with existing server sockets.

bulldozer blog series has a lot of this info already. http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/08/02...ulldozer-blog/

Since it's intended for servers primarily,this 16 core beast should put up quite a fight in that market segment against intel Xeons,and i'm left wondering if Intel will also use a dual die aproach to compete with it,or stick with a single sandy bridge/ivy bridge 8~10 core processor at 22nm,but running at higher clocks....
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 07:51 PM   #21
Qamly
Radeon R520
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 411
Qamly is still being judged by the masses


Default

JF-AMD already said that, that site is more or less rubbish about their so called leaks/facts.
Qamly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bulldozer raw flops DSV-UltraGL General Hardware 6 May 27, 2011 02:05 AM
Any News On Bulldozer? AllexxisF1 General Hardware 1 May 16, 2011 01:48 PM
Images of an AMD Bulldozer Cpu erek Front Page News 0 Apr 17, 2011 02:30 PM
Bulldozer Qs CurrentlyPissed General Hardware 7 Apr 15, 2011 06:08 PM
Bulldozer Turbo CORE: This one goes to 11 caveman-jim Front Page News 7 Feb 1, 2011 04:02 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright ©1998-2011 Rage3D.com
Links monetized by VigLink