• 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.

BULLDOZER COMING IN SEPTEMBER!!!!

some other guess it was around september, including me hence why i've never bothered asking for "guessed release dates"

but what my point is when people say something and shown proof u don't accept it and say it's wrong, but u haven't yet shown proof to back it up
 
Wait till it launches, and we'll see, but I'm keeping my predictions of ;
In 8 threaded applications, BD 8 core will be the best option.
SB will be faster clock for clock.

BD's very aggressive turbo will probably have it ruling the roost when you do stock 2500k versus BD 8170 in 1-4 threaded applications, but only due to the very aggressive turbo.
I'd love to be proven wrong.

I also don't think a CH V will overclock the same CPU further than a CH IV...
 
lol

reason?

should be the other way round.

?
The reason is, because the whole AM3+ IMO is hyperbole. I think a CH IV can cope the same as a CH V can. Tests have shown they both do the same bus speed (350 average)
Note : I've never made comment on other AM3 boards.....
 
Last edited:
it's not only about bus speed

as i said amd may release the higher speed BD's with larger pins. no body knows.

Oh I know, power delivery etc, but Asus ROG boards boast how good theirs is. The CH IV Extreme for example can probably deliver more stable power than a CH V Formula on paper, but in reality won't matter much.
If AMD make the pins bigger, then fair enough, but I'm not sure what models they can launch.. Given they've gone for stupid turbo speeds.
 
it didnt make sense that why i said should be the other way round.

It does make sense, it doesn't need to be the other way around :confused:
By same CPU, I mean ; The same CPU.. I.E I buy a BD 8170, overclock it on my CH V, I'd expect to get the same results OC'ing it on a CH IV.
 
I also don't think a CH V will overclock the same CPU further than a CH IV...

Who says it will, does a CH4 overclock an the very latest AM3 chip further than the best AM2+ board that will also run AM3 chips, unlikely to no.

YOu keep thinking black and white and marketing gimmicks and claims.

Its a standard, not a single board, AM3+ is the spec for the first Bulldozers out, AND chips out 1, maybe 2 years later, will THOSE chips overclock the same on the current AM3 boards as a new AM3+ version.

YOu keep seeming to miss the point, 98-99% of sales are to Dell's, to OEM's, to server builders, etc, etc, these people validate computers by thorough testing for months, often 6-12months for servers. Mobo's can't change on a daily basis, or monthly, the specs, the aims, the targets need to be established years in advance.

Phenom 2 would have a target range of amp drawage, top to bottom, range of voltages, memory voltages, etc, etc, and a mobo standard that fit the spec, top to bottom is created. Bulldozer will have the same design targets, and they make a new mobo standard to fit those targets. If Bulldozer is starting at 100amp's but intended to be at 135amp's in 2 years time, and Phenom 2 chips don't go beyond 105amps, then a new standard needs to be introduced AHEAD of time, WAY ahead of time, that will support the architecture OVER ITS LIFESPAN.

A basic low end AM3 chip worked on AM2+ boards(but not AM2 IIRC), but does a the top end hexcore chips, I honestly don't know, but then that was the same architecture and same process. Thats what you seem to be ignoring, new process, new voltage, amp, leakage, power requirement, on top of a new architecture.

Noise is VERY important, the smaller a node gets, the higher leakage is, the bigger the problem a chip actually has differentiating between 0's and 1's, less noise, cleaner signal, more accurate power is simply required.

Oh, one key thing to remember is how easily AM3+ boards will unlock a cpu, maybe bulldozer's have a chance to unlock, with a new option say Asus come up with to add to the board, but AM3 boards, out long before Bulldozers, can't do it.

I'm still really hoping AMD is going to give us the chance of a 6 core, pretty damn cheap Bulldozer that with a little voltage and a bios option, will unlock to a octo core.
 
Last edited:
By same CPU, I mean ; The same CPU.. I.E I buy a BD 8170, overclock it on my CH V, I'd expect to get the same results OC'ing it on a CH IV.
ok i get what u mean.

but who to say a CH V won't oc further...

even if a am3 board can oc a BD to the same, i really think overclocking a BD on a am3+ will need less voltage than on a am3 board for the same oc
 
Last edited:
If the CH V can clock further and better than the CH IV when using the same chip, then fair enough.
I have access to a CH IV, I wonder if I should sell my Maximus IV Extreme and get a CH V and go BD 8 core for lols.
 
bulldozer better be good. my current high end phenom 2 rig can only make my crossfire 6950's work at 40% each, cpu does not have enough horsepower.

BD BETTER be good!

There are many factors that make up GPU load & not all down to the CPU.


The game code itself.
Resolution, AA & quality settings.
And Crossfire profiles which can have a huge effect & i have run profiles that give me smooth 60fps V-Sync & only 22% GPU on each of my 4 GPUs & on the same game choose another Crossfire profile which load my GPUs to 80% each & only gives me 30fps.
 
bulldozer better be good. my current high end phenom 2 rig can only make my crossfire 6950's work at 40% each, cpu does not have enough horsepower.

BD BETTER be good!

lol, unless you bought a really low end dual core and only play certain games, you'll get more than 40% usage each, EASILY, in 99% of games.

First thing, turn off vsync ;) , secondly, overclock the cpu if its a dual core, or unlock cores if possible, or whatever. xfire 6950's aren't even close to being cpu limited by a quad core Phenom 2.
 
Bulldozer or lga2011. I can't wait :)

Lga2011 is just going to be horrible, flat out, whichever way you look at it. If you need every ounce of CPU power you can get for work, it will probably be great, but a quad core LGA2011 will be insanely expensive, quad channel memory you simply don't need, a premium on the quad core, overpriced mobo's and not ground breaking performance.

For gaming, and 99% of home use the difference between a Sandybridge and Sandybridge-E system will be felt only in the pocket, and not at all in usage.

Infact there will be area's where Sandybridge-e is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than a normal quad core Sandy due to quicksync(or whatever the heck its called, its late :p) encoding being done on the on die gpu, Sandybridge-e without that will be way way slower for a lot of encoding jobs.
 
Back
Top Bottom