• 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!

Final8y said:
Which mean discussing anything about future products with you could be pointless in itself.
Click to expand...

Not at all :confused:.
I was all for BD, then it got delayed, and delayed, and delayed... And finally delayed one last time.
I'm sticking to my predictions. Slower than SB clock for clock, but it'll be the best benching CPU out due to its 8 cores, it'll be the best CPU in applications which can use them, but as Thuban proved, the general populace, even us enthusiasts won't see the advantage over a 4 core.
Hell, there's a chance BD might be the best benching CPU in situations where 4 cores or less are utilised, depending on how it handles L2N cooling and whether it can reach the speeds Deneb can, as it'd have a 1GHZ+ advantage over SB due to SB's forced Multiplier limit.
All I've ever said is, slower than SB clock for clock, and a CH IV can handle a BD core and take it upto the same speed as a CH V, not accounting for extreme cases, and AM3+ marketing being hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say he's being pedantic - but would have to agree with Martini on this one..

The AM3+ platform must be amongst the shortest lived of the AMD sockets out there. Yes, there may be no tangible benefits other than SLI aswell as crossfire (HT3.1 is a non-issue as a CPU will NOT saturate the performance of HT3.0, let alone HT3.1) .

But theres other points to bear in mind also:

- Board Manufacturers wern't miffed at AMD for no reason, when they were forced to launch AM3+ without BD.

- Socket is mostly irrelevant - proven by the fact its already been tested and working fine on AM3 boards (some of which guarantee compatibility).

Its simple - If you don't have an AM3 board currently - you buy an AM3+ one. If you do have an AM3 board though - it would be best to wait until launch to find out about 100% compatiblity.
 
zoomee said:
I wouldn't say he's being pedantic - but would have to agree with Martini on this one..

The AM3+ platform must be amongst the shortest lived of the AMD sockets out there. Yes, there may be no tangible benefits other than SLI aswell as crossfire (HT3.1 is a non-issue as a CPU will NOT saturate the performance of HT3.0, let alone HT3.1) .
Click to expand...
And SLI comes in due to the chipset, which could have went to AM3 easily.
 
Martini1991 said:
Not at all :confused:.
I was all for BD, then it got delayed, and delayed, and delayed... And finally delayed one last time.
I'm sticking to my predictions. Slower than SB clock for clock, but it'll be the best benching CPU out due to its 8 cores, it'll be the best CPU in applications which can use them, but as Thuban proved, the general populace, even us enthusiasts won't see the advantage over a 4 core.
Hell, there's a chance BD might be the best benching CPU in situations where 4 cores or less are utilised, depending on how it handles L2N cooling and whether it can reach the speeds Deneb can, as it'd have a 1GHZ+ advantage over SB due to SB's forced Multiplier limit.
All I've ever said is, slower than SB clock for clock, and a CH IV can handle a BD core and take it upto the same speed as a CH V, not accounting for extreme cases, and AM3+ marketing being hyperbole.
Click to expand...

That's not what im talking about, im talking about your last few posts with gareth170 & we all could pull the no proof of progress card out when ever it suited us & practically ramming it home as fact before the product is out when you have no proof to back up your view.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
I have no idea what you're drivelling on about.

I'm only sceptical with AM3+.
I expect AMD's 7XXX series to be almost 100% improvement on the highest end single GPU for example.
Click to expand...

We are all sceptical about AM3+ but your examples of scepticism are nothing like what others are & have no more info to go on than anyone else.

The specification on the AM3+ are better fact, they have the potential to perform better based on the specification, fact. whether or not it will with BD we can only speculate, but the problem here is that your not even accepting the first 2 facts.
 
Last edited:
If manufacturers hadn't have released 890 chipset based boards with AM3+ sockets then maybe, just maybe the 'factual benefits' would hold true......
 
zoomee said:
If manufacturers hadn't have released 890 chipset based boards with AM3+ sockets then maybe, just maybe the 'factual benefits' would hold true......
Click to expand...

Which could be like saying there is no point in PCIE 3.0 slots because PCIE 3.0 cards are compatible with PCIE 2.0, some PCIE 3.0 cards will benefit when in PCIE 3.0 slots & some wont.

And i said potential benefits are there fact, that does not mean i'm saying that anything will make use of them.
 
Last edited:
zoomee said:
I wouldn't say he's being pedantic - but would have to agree with Martini on this one..

The AM3+ platform must be amongst the shortest lived of the AMD sockets out there. Yes, there may be no tangible benefits other than SLI aswell as crossfire (HT3.1 is a non-issue as a CPU will NOT saturate the performance of HT3.0, let alone HT3.1) .

But theres other points to bear in mind also:

- Board Manufacturers wern't miffed at AMD for no reason, when they were forced to launch AM3+ without BD.

- Socket is mostly irrelevant - proven by the fact its already been tested and working fine on AM3 boards (some of which guarantee compatibility).

Its simple - If you don't have an AM3 board currently - you buy an AM3+ one. If you do have an AM3 board though - it would be best to wait until launch to find out about 100% compatiblity.
Click to expand...

His points are not because there maybe no difference when BD is in both AM3 & AM3+ but the way he is applying it is.

And like saying there will be no benefit with DDR4, DDR5 & DDR6 & you saying but the specs are much better so they should be & the pedantic part is because DDR4. DDR5 & DDR6 are not out yet so you cant prove it, so i will keep telling everyone that regardless no matter how much technical info is put forwards in response.
 
Last edited:
No thats something entirely different mate.

The point I'm making is other than a slight difference in socket pin outs (which is'nt really going to affect the cpu anyway!) all the 'factual benefits' are null and void bearing in mind there are AM3+ boards out there (First batches shipped with just a socket change) with the same power phases (if not worse), same board design, same everything as some of the AM3 boards - i.e Early MSI AM3+ boards

The ONLY reason motherboard manufacturers had to introduce AM3+ boards is to guarantee 100% compatibility - as MOST AM3 boards don't have the required pins connected on the tracks on the board from the AM3 socket itself ;)

I can completely understand why AMD and board manufacturers had to do it (To guarantee 100% compatibility with the boards 'guaranteed for BD'). But it still doesn't make AM3+ any different (other than socket pin out) to some of the older AM3 boards. Hey ho - Fact is, if your buying a new board - you buy AM3+ (only sane option), if you've already got an AM3 boards, its best to wait and see if BIOS support is offered by your manufacturer.
 
zoomee said:
No thats something entirely different mate.

The point I'm making is other than a slight difference in socket pin outs (which is'nt really going to affect the cpu anyway!) all the 'factual benefits' are null and void bearing in mind there are AM3+ boards out there (First batches shipped with just a socket change) with the same power phases (if not worse), same board design, same everything as some of the AM3 boards - i.e Early MSI AM3+ boards

The ONLY reason motherboard manufacturers had to introduce AM3+ boards is to guarantee 100% compatibility - as MOST AM3 boards don't have the required pins connected on the tracks on the board from the AM3 socket itself ;)

I can completely understand why AMD and board manufacturers had to do it (To guarantee 100% compatibility with the boards 'guaranteed for BD'). But it still doesn't make AM3+ any different (other than socket pin out) to some of the older AM3 boards. Hey ho - Fact is, if your buying a new board - you buy AM3+ (only sane option), if you've already got an AM3 boards, its best to wait and see if BIOS support is offered by your manufacturer.
Click to expand...

And that's the biggest point of AM3+, the guaranteed for BD.
If you've already got an AM3 boards then its a lottery.
If there was no AM3+ socket then there would just be the lottery AM3 boards & a lot of users hounding manufactures for BIOS support that may or my not ever come for various reasons & the users who don't have a mobo with BD Bios will have to go & buy another AM3 mobo that does support BD & they are all still going to be just as sort lived when the next socket comes out anyway.
So the existence of Socket AM3+ should not be a problem for anyone to get upset about because anyone who doesn't have a BD AM3 compatible mobo will have to buy a new one anyway, so existence of Socket AM3+ makes no difference as far as forcing people to upgrade as they would have to upgrade even if there was no Socket AM3+.

So what difference should it make to anyone that someone upgrades:

1)From a AM3 non BD compatible mobo to a AM3 BD compatible mobo, if socket AM3+ didn't exist.

2)From a AM3 non BD compatible mobo to a AM3+ BD compatible mobo.

Anyway so far the people over at xtremesystems.org are saying that the AMD 9xx Chipset mobo are OCing there AM3 CPUs better than the older boards.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't make any difference at all - The point both martin and I are making is there is no point in 'upgrading' from 890FX to 990FX boards for example :P

The 'ever so slight' overclocking increases don't warrant a change over either for existing AM3 users (and are probably there from better tweaked BIOSes). This whole media hype about BD requiring a completely new chipset and mainboard "For substantiated reasons" is still unfounded - Its just a shame some lazy motheboard manufacturers chose to 'not wire a pin'....

Anyways - To quote Raja@Asus from XS Forums:

The newer AGESA versions don't sit well with core unlocking - AMD has configured things for Bulldozer. I know HQ are working on BIOSes at present for all boards (the BIOSes are while off yet as they will have a few changes). The core unlocking should improve on the newer BIOSes, but ultimately the 9 series boards are very much geared towards Bulldozer first and foremost.

-Raja
 
Last edited:
zoomee said:
Doesn't make any difference at all - The point both martin and I are making is there is no point in 'upgrading' from 890FX to 990FX boards for example :P

The 'ever so slight' overclocking increases don't warrant a change over either for existing AM3 users (and are probably there from better tweaked BIOSes). This whole media hype about BD requiring a completely new chipset and mainboard "For substantiated reasons" is still unfounded - Its just a shame some lazy motheboard manufacturers chose to 'not wire a pin'....

Anyways - To quote Raja@Asus from XS Forums:

The newer AGESA versions don't sit well with core unlocking - AMD has configured things for Bulldozer. I know HQ are working on BIOSes at present for all boards (the BIOSes are while off yet as they will have a few changes). The core unlocking should improve on the newer BIOSes, but ultimately the 9 series boards are very much geared towards Bulldozer first and foremost.

-Raja
Click to expand...

One thing i find when people say "no point" instead of "little point" is that i nearly always find a point.

1) Unless every 890FX can be Bios upgraded to BD then there's a point.
2) if a person does want the power regulating & gating features there's a point, including server market.
3) if a person wants the UEFI BIOS there's a point. [ I don't know if 890FX supports that]
4) HT3.1 maybe an issue for the server market there's a point.

Better Ocing AM3 chips because of bios improvements & not hardware is speculative including BD until confirmed otherwise as there will be some users with both 990 & 890 BD enable boards to test that out.

Yes there is a problem with unlocking on the 990 atm.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom