Also hoping there is no delay was planning on having my new system setup and running in just over amonth delay in BD will bugger that. Given the time that has passed i cannot see AMD having problems this late into things but you never know.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Bulldozer Finally!
- Thread starter AceTK
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,939
- Location
- London
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,287
Does not really tell us a lot.
The golden question is how 1 single module performs against a single SB core on a per cycle level. And how they compare at the die size and power consumption level.
At multithreaded scenarios, that those benchmarks linked, it was always more or less expected that bulldozer should have been better.
Would not suprise me if they still use the current one. Not that it bothers me, I never use stock heatsinks.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,532
- Location
- Dormanstown.
delay whysomething wrong with them surely can be if ES are same as final versions
What ES have we actually had confirmed?
These leaks have all been class as fake.
Fake or not, I'm a bit disappointed at the cinebench 11.5 result. My overclocked 1090t@4Ghz can do over 7 pts with six cores. If this is the result of 6+ cores then I can only assume there isn't much performance boost from phemom to bd. I do 3d render day to day and cinebench score means a lot to me. Hope it's fake or hope it can overclock amazingly well. I would really like to see BD doing 10+ pts when overclocked. Again, can't say much till we see the real test result.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,802
- Location
- Planet Earth
Here is a post from the blog where the benchmarks were leaked:
http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/05/i-have-to-laught.html
TBH,I don't know whether the benchmarks can be trusted.
http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/05/i-have-to-laught.html
TBH,I don't know whether the benchmarks can be trusted.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,532
- Location
- Dormanstown.
A benchmark without clocks is useless and cores.
am in the same boat, i have a [email protected] (just to keep fan noise to minimum), but run it up to 4.1Ghz during some renders and will get 7.18 on cinebench 11.5, knowing that bulldozer was not far away when i built the pc, i didnt want to spend very much hoping it would be a good cpu for 3d rendering and i could upgrade soon and make the 1090t a rendernode, so i hope these early benchmarks arent true. Single core performance isnt really that important for me, but i hope amd dont make me regret not just spending the extra for sandybridge!
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,939
- Location
- London
I was thinking about this yesterday.
I already have a quad core, so upgrading to a 2500k isnt really what Im looking for.
If I was to upgrade it has to be next gen, which is 8 cores.
If BD can match the 2600k for speed and provide 8 cores at slightly cheaper then that would be fantastic.... and a worthy upgrade.
I already have a quad core, so upgrading to a 2500k isnt really what Im looking for.
If I was to upgrade it has to be next gen, which is 8 cores.
If BD can match the 2600k for speed and provide 8 cores at slightly cheaper then that would be fantastic.... and a worthy upgrade.
Why does it have to be 8 cores? Surely performance matters, not the amount of cores?
Exactly.
My current applications.
And most people on here will upgrade within 2 or 3 years anyway, so its not a major concern for most , as I doubt there will be a sudden massive change to software that needs 8 cores outside of the niche rendering and transcoding sector.
