AMD Bulldozer Finally!

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?

Tuvoc · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:53

Owenb said:
It should be no surprise that AMD won't be very competitive. Why?

The whole design screams out that it's not for the PC enthusiast. We still want 4 fast cores, not 8 average cores.

No, give me 8 average cores over 4 fast cores every day of the week.

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:56

iBSOD said:
Does this include PCS2x, a PS2 emulator?

Yes.

Tuvoc said:
No, give me 8 average cores over 4 fast cores every day of the week.

So they can sit around idle?

gareth170 said:
i didn't say anything about 3.0
gurusan said

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..

PCI-E 3.0 8X = PCI-E 2.0 16X, making your bandwidth argument moot. I don't see why you're missing that?

1155 might be 8x/8x, but it'll be PCIE 3.0 making it the same bandwidth.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
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.

My point exactly.

james.miller · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:57

iBSOD said:
Does this include PCS2x, a PS2 emulator?

I should hope so as it's not like anything else needs that sort of processing power

Tuvoc · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:58

Martini1991 said:
Yes.

So they can sit around idle?

No, so that all 8 (or 7 of 8) will get used 24/7

gurusan · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:58

gareth170 said:
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..

Yes, and I said that you missed the point of my post. You use a few percentage points performance hit as an argument but ignore the massive performance difference between the actual platforms.

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 19:59

Tuvoc said:
No, so that all 8 (or 7 of 8) will get used 24/7

You're in the minority.
But if you'll be using 8 threads 24/7, you're right, 8 average cores all the way.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 9 Oct 2011 at 20:01

Martini1991 said:
PCI-E 3.0 8X = PCI-E 2.0 16X, making your bandwidth argument moot. I don't see why you're missing that?

1155 might be 8x/8x, but it'll be PCIE 3.0 making it the same bandwidth.

My point exactly.

You do realise he was answering another poster talking about PCI-E 2.0 8X/8X and not PCI-E 3.0 8X. On top of this since Sandy Bridge has an on-die PCI-E controller it means you will need to wait until Ivy Bridge which is around six months away at least. Also, only a very few socket 1155 motherboards have PCI-E 3.0 ATM. Are they even available in the UK yet??

Martini1991 said:
You're in the minority.
But if you'll be using 8 threads 24/7, you're right, 8 average cores all the way.

?? So maybe there are people who want to use loads of disks. You got to understand people have different needs for their computer than you. I myself have no need for more than 3 or 4 SATA devices so having a million SATA ports is not important for me.

gareth170 · 9 Oct 2011 at 20:03

Martini1991 said:
PCI-E 3.0 8X = PCI-E 2.0 16X, making your bandwidth argument moot. I don't see why you're missing that?

1155 might be 8x/8x, but it'll be PCIE 3.0 making it the same bandwidth.

u said before this PCI-E 3.0 2X = PCI-E 2.0 16X, now your saying PCI-E 3.0 8X = PCI-E 2.0 16X.

lets just wait and see tbh.