Some news on Piledriver

[Number_25]

Erm? no, My AM3 DDR3 CPU drops right into an AM2+ DDR2 socket and works perfectly right off the bat with DDR2 memory.

We have had this discussion before, AMD only change there sockets when they absolutely have to, and even then they design the next generation CPU to fit on the old one so you don't have to change the socket if you don't want to or are a bit short on cash.

Do Sandy Bridge CPU's have DDR2 controllers in them?

There is no reason why AMD would not continue this with the GPU controller change.

I would say that the cost of DDR3 is so little nowadays that there's no point in sticking with AM2 on that purpose alone.

 

[Martini1991]

Erm? no, My AM3 DDR3 CPU drops right into an AM2+ DDR2 socket and works perfectly right off the bat with DDR2 memory.

We have had this discussion before, AMD only change there sockets when they absolutely have to, and even then they design the next generation CPU to fit on the old one so you don't have to change the socket if you don't want to or are a bit short on cash.

Do Sandy Bridge CPU's have DDR2 controllers in them?

There is no reason why AMD would not continue this with the GPU controller change.

What the hell are you talking about?
To get PCI-E 3.0 you would need at least a new chipset & Board (Given you know that AMD's PCI-E controller is in the chipset, not the CPU), it'd likely come from a new socket (Moot point even if it didn't, still a new board)
So much ignorance when it comes to AMD and sockets in general.

More of Humbug talking about stuff he DOESN'T know about?

I would say that the cost of DDR3 is so little nowadays that there's no point in sticking with AM2 on that purpose alone.

It was also completely irrelevant to PCI-E 3.0.
He was trying to slam Intel while praising AMD.

Although, his praise for AMD on the IMC front is valid, although completely irrelevant.
Although, can be a double edged sword, 3 sockets with no real CPU change (Phenom II ran on AM2+/AM3/AM3+, but some people will have gone through that platform upgrade continuously for no reason and no performance boost, some AM2 boards could take Phenom II's too, so could be said 4 sockets of Phenom II)
Isn't that just testament to how good the Phenom II series was, I applaud AMD for that, but again, as I said, that's a lot of sockets without any real performance improvement.





EDIT : So, just so I'm aware, I'm an AMD hater/Intel fanatic, who knows more about the AMD platforms than the AMD users who defend them? Then exactly how am I meant to win ?

 

[humbug]

You would also need a new board with with Intel.

The point is keeping a large compatibility range is at a cost to AMD in expensive DIE space, solid gold connection circuits and also Pins which are gold plated copper, they don't have to do it and Intel don't.

What that does is give the end user a range of options and ways to make things cheaper for them.

I am praising AMD for that, they deserve it for being thoughtful to there customers at a cost to themselves, so why not?

 

[Martini1991]

You would also need a new board with with Intel.

What?
Intel already have PCI-E 3.0 support with X79 and Z77.
The PCI-E 3.0 comes from SB-E and Ivy CPU's.
In P67 due to the switches used, a BIOS update with an Ivy can only make the primary lane PCI-E 3.0, but theoretically can happen to all boards, as they can all take Ivy, H61/H61/P67.

Z68 has a lot of proper PCI-E 3.0 boards, some the same as P67.
Z77 is all PCI-E 3.0.

LGA are gold plated copper.
For the rest, I don't even know where to start.

 

[humbug]

What?
Intel already have PCI-E 3.0 support with X79 and Z77.
The PCI-E 3.0 comes from SB-E and Ivy CPU's.
In P67 due to the switches used, a BIOS update with an Ivy can only make the primary lane PCI-E 3.0, but theoretically can happen to all boards, as they can all take Ivy, H61/H61/P67.

Z68 has a lot of proper PCI-E 3.0 boards, some the same as P67.
Z77 is all PCI-E 3.0.

For the rest, I really don't care, you're not able to discuss at this level.

Yes, and Piledriver will drop right onto my existing Motherboard, just as my AM3 is running perfectly on my AM3+ (Bulldozer socket) right now.

I don't need a new Mothboard, not now, not with Piledriver and an AM4 PCIe3 / DDR4 chip will no doubt run on it too. i don't have to upgrade the Motherboard along with it, i only need a new motherboard when i actually want PCIe3

 

[Martini1991]

Unless AMD go LGA with AM4, they've toyed with LGA before (Though not released as a socket)
I'd be surprised if the socket after AM3+ is another PGA.
Can only maintain the same physical CPU/Socket wise for so long, LGA will allow for a much larger pin count in the same space.

Although, you're right about the Vishera chip going into your motherboard, not that it has any impact at all upon any point I've made, it's an upgrade path, like SB to Ivy (Although I expect more significant).
AM3 can take Zambezi (And likely Vishera) but it was AMD who blocked it by introducing AM3+, only a handful of AM3 boards can take BD officially, I bet many, many more could have been updated to though.

 

[humbug]

Unless AMD go LGA with AM4, they've toyed with LGA before (Though not released as a socket)
I'd be surprised if the socket after AM3+ is another PGA.
Can only maintain the same physical CPU/Socket wise for so long, LGA will allow for a much larger pin count in the same space.

Although, you're right about the Vishera chip going into your motherboard, not that it has any impact at all upon any point I've made, it's an upgrade path, like SB to Ivy (Although I expect more significant).
AM3 can take Zambezi (And likely Vishera) but it was AMD who blocked it by introducing AM3+, only a handful of AM3 boards can take BD officially, I bet many, many more could have been updated to though.

I think AMD will continue to resists LGA for as long as they can.

Adding functionality ecte.... does not necessarily mean having to increase pin count, so far AMD have been largely successful in keeping pin count down.

But yes i also think it can't go on for ever. If AMD can make AM4 PGA i think they will.

The only thing stopping AM3 boards taking Bulldozer CPU's is the boards BIOS, Partners have been slow to update AM3 boards BIOS, mostly because they want to sell you a new board.

 

[Martini1991]

Anyways. I'm out, as I said before, you can't discuss at this level, I disagree with your last point and other parts.
Phenom II, partners were very quick to get support out, hell, even Thuban got a lot of AM2+ support, not going to believe they'd suddenly slack (Standstill even, only seen CH IV F and CH IV E with support) when it's AMD's "biggest" launch in years, we're now 9 months after Zambezi's launch, still not got any new AM3 support.

 

[Hagar]

Unless AMD go LGA with AM4, they've toyed with LGA before (Though not released as a socket)
I'd be surprised if the socket after AM3+ is another PGA.
Can only maintain the same physical CPU/Socket wise for so long, LGA will allow for a much larger pin count in the same space.

Although, you're right about the Vishera chip going into your motherboard, not that it has any impact at all upon any point I've made, it's an upgrade path, like SB to Ivy (Although I expect more significant).
AM3 can take Zambezi (And likely Vishera) but it was AMD who blocked it by introducing AM3+, only a handful of AM3 boards can take BD officially, I bet many, many more could have been updated to though.

I think AMD left it to the mobo manufacturers which boards they would sanction for AM3+ and which are going EOL.

I agree, a new chipset would be required for PCI-e 3.0 and would be useful for large resolution gaming where it has most impact. SB1050?

Limits on CPU pin arrays must be getting closer so maybe LGA although I do like the current system. They toyed with slot A as well but that did not last long and they reverted to socket mobo.

 

[Martini1991]

I think AMD left it to the mobo manufacturers which boards they would sanction for AM3+ and which are going EOL.

I agree, a new chipset would be required for PCI-e 3.0 and would be useful for large resolution gaming where it has most impact. SB1050?

Limits on CPU pin arrays must be getting closer so maybe LGA although I do like the current system. They toyed with slot A as well but that did not last long and they reverted to socket mobo.

I have a hard time believing that, AMD came out and said AM3+ only pretty much (By that, they said it's not support on AM3)
Gigabyte went and gave most/if not all socket 1155 boards PCI-E 3.0 support with an Ivy bridge CPU (Primary lane only, I know) yet they're not going to support AMD's FX on AM3? Yeah right.
FX890 was THE native Bulldozer chipset (As was touted when they launched, obviously wasn't the reality) only 890FX board I saw get support was the CH IV's.

 

[humbug]

I have a hard time believing that, AMD came out and said AM3+ only pretty much (By that, they said it's not support on AM3)
Gigabyte went and gave most/if not all socket 1155 boards PCI-E 3.0 support with an Ivy bridge CPU (Primary lane only, I know) yet they're not going to support AMD's FX on AM3? Yeah right.
FX890 was THE native Bulldozer chipset (As was touted when they launched, obviously wasn't the reality) only 890FX board I saw get support was the CH IV's.

I have never seen AMD say Bulldozer is not supported by AM3, Board makers did say that for a time, also there are AM3+ Motherboard that have 8## chip sets on them.

 

[Martini1991]

I have never seen AMD say Bulldozer is not supported by AM3, Board makers did say that for a time, also there are AM3+ Motherboard that have 8## chip sets on them.

I know.
Which is irrelevant to anything, more so proves it's not a chipset thing.
The majority of AM3+ boards were just rehashed AM3 boards with the AM3+ socket.

Although, again, me knowing more about you in the platform you defend ; http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=532&t=138432

That's AMD saying no AM3.

 

[humbug]

I know.
Which is irrelevant to anything, more so proves it's not a chipset thing.
The majority of AM3+ boards were just rehashed AM3 boards with the AM3+ socket.

Although, again, me knowing more about you in the platform you defend ; http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=532&t=138432

That's AMD saying no AM3.

You knowing more than me? even if that were true, what would you like? a biscuit? this is also a competition to you? what are you,- 12?

That's not AMD saying no AM3, that's you pulling up a forum where one employee is asking another employee.

AMD themselves never made any statement re- Bulldozer AM3.
Board Partners said to AMD they would not support Bulldozer on AM3. I'm pretty sure AMD had some ongoing negotiation with them at that time, how that went i don't know, but don't blame AMD if there partners don't want to play ball, get your facts right before you start trying to drag them through to mud.

Its people like you pretending to know what there talking about and claiming statements of facts where there are none who caws utter rubbish to start floating around the Internet for other naive children to believe.

You know absolutely nothing and are more often than not completely wrong.

Anyway, its past your bed time.

 

[wannabedamned]

You knowing more than me? even if that were true, what would you like? a biscuit? this is also a competition to you? what are you,- 12?

That's not AMD saying no AM3, that's you pulling up a forum where one employee is asking another employee.

AMD themselves never made any statement re- Bulldozer AM3.
Board Partners said to AMD they would not support Bulldozer on AM3. I'm pretty sure AMD had some ongoing negotiation with them at that time, how that went i don't know, but don't blame AMD if there partners don't want to play ball, get your facts right before you start trying to drag them through to mud.

Its people like you pretending to know what there talking about and claiming statements of facts where there are none who caws utter rubbish to start floating around the Internet for other naive children to believe.

You know absolutely nothing and are more often than not completely wrong.

Anyway, its past your bed time.

You should look into who JF-AMD actually is. Its not just a random employee, He has a very reputable...reputation and most of what he says can be taken as Gospel. He frequents all the hardware forums and is most definitely someone who can be taken at his word.

Also, Just because he said he knew more than you about the subject at hand, doesnt mean you have to start with name calling.

In this particular situation he did, didnt he?

I do have to say JF-AMD recieved a lot of flack after BD turned out to be so pants, His credibility was hurt. However that doesnt mean he didnt deal in facts, or in what AMD told him

 

[Martini1991]

You knowing more than me? even if that were true, what would you like? a biscuit? this is also a competition to you? what are you,- 12?

That's not AMD saying no AM3, that's you pulling up a forum where one employee is asking another employee.

AMD themselves never made any statement re- Bulldozer AM3.
Board Partners said to AMD they would not support Bulldozer on AM3. I'm pretty sure AMD had some ongoing negotiation with them at that time, how that went i don't know, but don't blame AMD if there partners don't want to play ball, get your facts right before you start trying to drag them through to mud.

Its people like you pretending to know what there talking about and claiming statements of facts where there are none who caws utter rubbish to start floating around the Internet for other naive children to believe.

You know absolutely nothing and are more often than not completely wrong.

Anyway, its past your bed time.

Pretending to know what I'm talking about? Remind me where I've been wrong about anything I've said?
I'd say it's the other way around when it comes to pretending.

Bulldozer is supported in AM3+ only.

That is the official word from AMD.

I'm sure that says official word from AMD.

In this particular situation he did, didnt he?

Should read the thread, it's rather funny

JF-AMD really did take some flack, few famous words of his were "IPC increases", didn't

 

[humbug]

I'm sure that says official word from AMD.



Should read the thread, it's rather funny

JF-AMD really did take some flack, few famous words of his were "IPC increases", didn't

I rest my case.

Pretending to know what I'm talking about? Remind me where I've been wrong about anything I've said?

here... http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/search.php?searchid=15913634

 

[Martini1991]

I rest my case.



here... http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/search.php?searchid=15913634

Anyone who reads this thread can quite clearly see I've been right with what I've said in this thread.
A pedantic attempt to prove I've said anything problem in the past, well, that speaks for itself.

 

[Number_25]

Some information I just found:-

When launched, FX-Series 8350 is going to be the flagship AMD processor.

This model utilizes enhanced Bulldozer microarchitecture, codenamed Piledriver, and incorporates 8 CPU cores and 16 MB cache, including 8 MB L2 and 8 MB of L3 caches.

The FX processor is clocked at 4 GHz, or about 11% higher than the best consumer AMD CPU at this moment, FX-8150.

Overall, performance of the 8300 could be even greater than 11% in multi-threading applications due to improvements in the Piledriver architecture.

Both FX-8350 and FX-8150 have maximum Turbo Core frequency of 4.2 GHz, therefore the performance difference in single-threaded tasks won't be as big, however even in these tasks the upcoming chip should be slightly ahead of the FX-8150.

Like the current generation of FX microprocessors, the 8350 supports DDR3-1866 memory, has unlocked clock multiplier, and does not integrate graphics unit.

The processor has 125 Watt TDP, and works in socket AM3+ motherboards.

According to Fudzilla, FX-Series 8350 will start sampling in August 2012.

The processor will be launched in late October, which means that it was delayed by at least a month.

Source

 

[Hagar]

Sounds like a new CPU in early 2013 for me. I'll let the dust settle out first though.

Note to self, update and test bios

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

4.2GHZ Turbo Core for lightly threaded tasks seems rather low TBH.