AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:11

gareth170 said:
which boards have pcie 2 16x/16x, 1 pcie 1x which can be used, 1 pci which can be used, atleast 8SATAs 2 usb3s, UEIF bios

Which AMD boards have PCI-E 3.0? None.
You buy what you use. The majority won't use what they buy, and will have a lot of empty slots.

gurusan · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:13

Who gives a rats ass about dual 16x lanes? 8x 2.0 is plenty

Or are you going to point me to a few benchmarks with 2-3% performance gain over x8? You honestly can't start worrying about a potential 2-3% loss of performance at super high resolution when you happily accept much larger losses in performance all over the board by choosing the inferior product (Phenom 2)

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:14

gurusan said:
Who gives a rats ass about dual 16x lanes? 8x 2.0 is plenty

Or are you going to point me to a few benchmarks with 2-3% performance gain over x8? You honestly can't start worrying about a potential 2-3% loss of performance at super high resolution when you happily accept much larger losses in performance all over the board by choosing the inferior product (Phenom 2)

The funny thing is, that they use "PCI-E 3.0 isn't needed".

gareth170 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:15

Martini1991 said:
Pretty much none, which AMD boards have PCI-E 3.0? None.
You buy what you use. The majority won't use what they buy, and will have a lot of empty slots.

well i use all what i said above....

so for me i guess going over to a intel board would being issues

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:17

gareth170 said:
well i use all what i said above....

so for me i guess going over to a intel board would being issues

But you can change to accommodate.
You could cut your hard drives so you run the same amount of storage in less drives using RAID or something.

My board has a lot of USB 3.0 etc and was 260 quid.

gareth170 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:20

gurusan said:
Who gives a rats ass about dual 16x lanes? 8x 2.0 is plenty)

who don't know if 7000 eats more bandwidth

SheepBeast · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:21

do we know what bulldozers uk pricing is?

Sin_Chase · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:22

Martini1991 said:
But you can change to accommodate.
You could cut your hard drives so you run the same amount of storage in less drives using RAID or something.

My board has a lot of USB 3.0 etc and was 260 quid.

SHUSH YOU!

How could you EVER understand the need for 120 USB 3.0 devices and 60 HDDs all needing THEIR OWN port. Jeez :mad:

gurusan · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:22

gareth170 said:
who don't know if 7000 eats more bandwidth

Wow, so you really did just miss the entire point of that post. :rolleyes:

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:23

gareth170 said:
who don't know if 7000 eats more bandwidth

7000 are PCI-E 3.0, something AMD doesn't have, and if AM3+ is given more life, won't have in 2012 either. That said, Intel won't have PCI-E 3.0 till Ivy hits, but it's still 1155.

Sin_Chase said:
SHUSH YOU!

How could you EVER understand the need for 120 USB 3.0 devices and 60 HDDs all needing THEIR OWN port. Jeez

Crazy.

gareth170 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:27

Martini1991 said:
But you can change to accommodate.
You could cut your hard drives so you run the same amount of storage in less drives using RAID or something.

My board has a lot of USB 3.0 etc and was 260 quid.

true but i prefer keep my data on separate disks so if one gets a problem the others will be still ok.

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:29

gareth170 said:
true but i prefer keep my data on separate disks so if one gets a problem the others will be still ok.

RAID

gareth170 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:37

Martini1991 said:
7000 are PCI-E 3.0, something AMD doesn't have, and if AM3+ is given more life, won't have in 2012 either. That said, Intel won't have PCI-E 3.0 till Ivy hits, but it's still 1155.

so ?

it still backward compatible to 2.0 , but my point was we don't know if 7000 eats more bandwidth from 2.0 16x so if it does then running it on a 2.0 8x would mean a higher performance hit than now..

understand now?

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:39

gareth170 said:
so ?

it still backward compatible to 2.0 , but my point was we don't know if 7000 eats more bandwidth from 2.0 16x so if it does then running it on a 2.0 8x would mean a higher performance hit than now..

understand now?

But the PCI-E 3.0 at 2x would be the same bandwidth as a PCI-E 2.0 16X lane.
Rendering the point moot.
There wouldn't be any hit.
You missed the point.

gareth170 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:40

Martini1991 said:
RAID

if 1hdd dies in the raid the whole raid misses up.

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:40

gareth170 said:
if 1hdd dies in the raid the whole raid misses up.

You need to read up on the different RAID types

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:47

Martini1991 said:
You need to read up on the different RAID types

Drive mirroring with RAID 1 allows you to directly access the data if one of the two drives goes kaput. Other RAID levels with parity need at least three to four drives plus you need to rebuild the RAID eventually if one drive is faulty but data is still readable.

gareth170 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:47

Martini1991 said:
But the PCI-E 3.0 at 2x would be the same bandwidth as a PCI-E 2.0 16X lane.
Rendering the point moot.
There wouldn't be any hit.
You missed the point.

i didn't say anything about 3.0
gurusan said

Who gives a rats ass about dual 16x lanes? 8x 2.0 is plenty

but im saying if 7000 eats more bandwidth from 2.0 16x so if it does then running it on a 2.0 8x would mean a higher performance hit than now..

Quicken · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:49

So as far as i can tell from the "Rumour Mill", There will be no Pre-order, Just a lifting of the NDA on wednesday 12th, then all the benchies from "Proper" reviewers with "Proper" bios's and drivers then a fight to buy from someone who has them in stock.
That about right?.

iBSOD · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:52

Martini1991 said:
Nope.
Because it's not going to be faster for what I do ; Gaming.
Also, emulation is much better on the 2500k than it would be an 8150.

Does this include PCS2x, a PS2 emulator?