• 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!

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It seems this chap was right about a few things.
Click to expand...

He also sounds totally schizophrenic. His posts since then have been a mix of boundless, fanboy-ish optimism and grave negativity - both extremes border on the childish.

So whilst I initially felt him to be a trustworthy source - the first to speak about BullDozer - he's a very strange individual ...
 
gurusan said:
Yay, more useless, irrelevant, extreme overclocking
Click to expand...

Still, theres some info even for the ordinary ppl :rolleyes:

"The implication is that the AMD FX platform is pretty robust, doesn't throw out too much heat, and scales very well with the quality of cooling solution."

Anyway the point is Intel doesnt have the world record in Overclocking. Thats a biggie.
 
Just remember guys this is brand new tech which isn't tried and tested. There could be compatibilty issues on all fronts. I would not be in any rush to jump on this bandwagon just yet. If you can let the dust settle and enjoy the ride.

Looking forward to seeing what AMD can do against Intel.
 
Just a thought to throw out there.
Due to the modules design, when the two parts of the module are being used, there's a performance drop as opposed if there was two "halfs" from two modules being used.

It's very possible than each half of a module has close IPC to Lynfield (best case scenario, maybe 5-10% in it), the 8150 in 4 threaded app's would perform close to an i5 750 clock for clock, but when a full module is used, its IPC is closer to two deneb cores.

So, while the FX4100 would pwn is 2 threaded app's, in 4 threaded app's it may not be much faster than a Phenom II x4, just higher clocked.

Obviously that's a lot of conjecture, but it's fact when the two parts of the module as used, it takes a hit.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It seems this chap was right about a few things.
Click to expand...

Missing out the awesome part, the only things he was wrong about was the time frames, which is down to AMD.
 
Last edited:
Rossi~ said:
They achieved that overclock with only 2 cores enabled? Seriously? I would disqualify that so hard.
But nevertheless, great scott 8GHz+?!?! :o holy mother of god!
Click to expand...

What is a Celeron that had the record before, a prescott with most of the L2 cache removed,maybe even 64bit removed(when 64bit was relatively new Intel were removing it as a feature on some chips, can't for the life of me remember when or which chips though).

A celeron is nothing more than a cut down Prescott, the 8.4+Ghz on Bulldozer was done the same way but with a heck of a lot more transistors and a heck of lot more cache working.
 
was it fully stable at 4.8-5ghz?

thats what im interested in the highist fully stable oc with safe voltage and with normal cooling i.e air, / WC
 
Last edited:
Their record was set with 2 cores / 2 threads. So far, nacho_arroyo has gotten 7.1GHz with 6 cores / 12 threads.
That the Intel 7.1GHz eats the 8.4GHz amd for breakfast.
Not to mention that the 980X debuted well over a year ago, and is still going strong
Smoke screen from amd - phenom's also OC'ed better than C2D,how phenom's finished we know LOL :D

Not sure it should really count considering it is multiple processors on a single chip created to work together.
Divide it by the number of cores they use, then you get the actual speed of a single processor and that would be no where near what they are saying.
iBUYPOWER? Somebody should jump on this bandwagon,nothing interesting in this.Sady E and Ivy for Alienware any day plz
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom