No, the article specifically states it will require dual BIOS mobos to be wiped, too. The whole point is that it needs to be WIPED, not re-flashed. You can't do that.
Also, it's stupid Intel ... it's their implementation that is the problem.
-
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
No, the article specifically states it will require dual BIOS mobos to be wiped, too. The whole point is that it needs to be WIPED, not re-flashed. You can't do that.
Also, it's stupid Intel ... it's their implementation that is the problem.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,342
- Location
- Dormanstown.
You didn't read the article properly did you?
That's from the user end on dual BIOS boards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
Fair enough...but the wipe is free. And atleast its available, costs us nothing to go from no compatibility to compatibility.
But yes, Stupid intel.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Oh dear, I didn't see that! Poor JF must be cracking under stress. This thread has been far nicer and more leveled than some other banter he is getting elsewhere, though. And all aspects of 'performance' are fair game in terms of analysis. Consider most discrete and statistical applications, for example, single threaded performance is still king in those domains and denying that won't do anybody any good.
But I'm just generally musing about why they put the clocks up high. From an engineering point of view, you either going for glory or you really do need the high clocks to compensate either for low IPC, poor multi-threaded or double precision performance.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,342
- Location
- Dormanstown.
.
A little bit more info about the price from a Hardware vendor http://www.overclock.net/tankguys-pre-sales/1111697-amd-bulldozer-pre-order-info.html
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,342
- Location
- Dormanstown.
We can't really digest anything solid price wise from that though for ourselves, except compare it to Intels dollar pricing and try and extrapolate and make an estimate.
I wish we had a direct conversion
.
I wish we had a direct conversion
.I did read it and it doesn't sound plausible. It's also contradicted by the other article:
"All in all, the Ivy Bridge is likely to need a clean wipe of the Flash ROM on motherboards, down to flashing both BIOSes on dual-BIOS mainboards."
The whole point is that it needs to be completely wiped, not re-flashed.
Also, even if you're correct, that applies to less than 1% of 1155 mobos.
bulldozer delayed until mid-october at the earliest: http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/23986-no-bulldozer-in-september
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,342
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I'm not arguing that.
But two contradicting articles?
Though you have pegged my interest for what happens in the future.
Though, if you can clean flash one BIOS, and then the other, that sounds plausible and do-able if given the ability to, user end?
And I'm not arguing the importance and let down this is. It's quite phenomenal. However, it's unknown if it's JUST the Intel boards, or not.
There's too many unknowns right now, but it is VERY important regardless, thanks for bringing it my attention, I'll be right on the RMA if need be.
I think the point is that Intel's changes to UEFI requirements for Ivy Bridge means that the existing BIOS cannot be re-flashed with a new one, because Ivy removes several features from current spec, making them mutually incompatible. Hence the requirement for a clean wipe (which isn't possible for end-users).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,342
- Location
- Dormanstown.
We'll see how it plays out. But it's interesting.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 1,488
- Location
- Nottingham
Say what! No way. Doesn't matter that much as I won't have money until Christmas, but still I'd like to see what it can do.
Hmm. Any other sources saying the same? Disappointing that. Have 2-3 people that want systems building around then so it's going to be touch and go for them. Surely they need to get this released before the new COD / BF games come out as a lot of people are going to be looking to buy whole new systems or big upgrades in prep for this time of year.
Same here.
And im in no hurry, it can come out next year for all i care but i sympathies with the people needing to upgrade now.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,342
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Personally, given the chance, I'd jump back on the AMD bandwagon, my preference is the under dog. Meh.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,287
ARM seems to be a good candidate for the small form factor, low power portables and possibly low power desktop.
It will depend on how well Intel executes on the next generation architecture that Atom will have (next year i think?).
I am curious to see how the ARM implementation of Windows 8 will play out. If MS makes it easy for developers to make two versions of their apps then ARM has a good chance.
ARM has power efficiency right now, but in computing terms is still away from Intel btw.
Then there is the whole, computing power is enough mantra that AMD has been shooting really. I cant say its wrong, because for most its true.
What i would like to see would be for Intel manufacturing to be split from Intel. They are so far ahead of everyone its kinda shame that not everyone benefits from their excellent manufacturing capabilities.
