It's not a retail version so you cant really compare.
-
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!
- Thread starter AceTK
- Start date
It's not a retail version so you cant really compare.
Those benchmarks looks good though until official figures I think thy should be taken with a pinch of salt. No reason why it couldnt be at 1.4 v though, if the rumours are true that thy had trouble reaching good core speeds maybe they have had to use higher v core to achieve competitive core speed. I really hope not as could really hinder any overclocking overhead but still not official chips so who knows to be honest, still a game of wait and see.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,022
- Location
- Billericay, UK
And I doubt CPUZ is fully coded for Bulldozer.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,309
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Apparently it is.
It's a totally different architecture. I somehow doubt it's running at identical currents. So we have no idea if that's good, bad or nominal.
I thought that was quite funny... in a tongue in cheek kind of way!
I might not be 'down with the kids' but I quite liked the comic idea, it's a little different at least.
i dont know if this is old new or something (ive check the last 15 page of a 97 thread and didnt find anything lol)
but the FX 6120 looks to be a really good mid-end Hexa core... if the price is right (?) i would look forward to this one (or the 6150)
PD: if this was posted, than my bad =(
but the FX 6120 looks to be a really good mid-end Hexa core... if the price is right (?) i would look forward to this one (or the 6150)
PD: if this was posted, than my bad =(
Yes I know, BUT:
Its running on a different process mate, so it should require lower than 1.4v just to get 3.6Ghz...
The point I'm making anyway is that it looks like them benchies are from the older engineering samples which we all know are pants anyway. That and along with the finely picked intel pro benchies - makes one question the real motives of the supplier of them. Least they coulda done was some better bloomin graphs lol
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Most importantly, will hex or even quad cores have the extra modules unlockable? Or an even more important question what wafer runs are AMD doing, because of the design will they be manufacturing only 4 module/8 core chips and disabling one or two modules, or making 4/6/8 core chips separately so no chance of unlocking.
Something like a £130-150 hexcore you could unlock with to a octo core would be awesome.
who knows how the architecture fares with different voltages, at the end of the day its a different sort of design from most current processors so to say 'it should require less than 1.4V...' is a bit pointless without understanding how much voltage it requires in the first place or how the architecture reacts to the voltage.
wouldn't directly compare Intel silicon with AMD silicon either since they have never been directly comparable in terms of voltages and behaviours, fair enough Sandy Bridge is really voltage sensitive but unless you are an engineer at Intel or AMD to tell us something otherwise it might just have something to do with the different design methods of AMD, 1.4V could be perfectly normal...who knows?
wouldn't directly compare Intel silicon with AMD silicon either since they have never been directly comparable in terms of voltages and behaviours, fair enough Sandy Bridge is really voltage sensitive but unless you are an engineer at Intel or AMD to tell us something otherwise it might just have something to do with the different design methods of AMD, 1.4V could be perfectly normal...who knows?
I'll reiterate what I said before ... you don't have any idea what current that's running at.
If anything, the new process and architecture of Bulldozer should tolerate higher voltages, relatively speaking (though it's unlikely to require them) than Deneb or Thuban. It's SOI & HKMG and has much more advanced power & clock gating ... I specifically would expect relatively high voltages when Turbo mode is engaged on 2-4 cores.
that would be BEATIFUL, but i have a question... does AMD (like with the old Phenom II x2) arent aware of unlockable cores or do they do it that way intentionally ?
I thought the 'Rendering (1 CPU)' test in Cinebench R10 was a good way of comparing core vs core or am I missing something?
Well the 900 chipsets are designed from the ground up to support it however some boards with 700 and 800 chipsets will support them through bios updates, although this depends on the board revision.
and the 700 and 800 chipsets may not be able to overclock them as high as the 900 chipset
i read that the am3+ boards use slightly different power system for the BD
http://www.asrock.com/news/events/2011am3+/
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,254
- Location
- London
Now they think it's going to be October.....
Its because we have most of the answers now. We know how the engineering samples performed, we know it'll hit high clockspeeds, we know the prices and models, and we know it'll almost certainly be available at the end of September.
There's nothing left to talk about until the retail version gets benched and leaked.