• 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!

zoomee said:
Me :) ;) :) - ready and waiting dude lol

We've been through this debate of HT 3 v's HT3.1 at XS Forums - BD will NOT be able to saturate the current HT3 limits let alone the new one. If that was the case we would not have certain AM3+ mainboards based on the 890 Chipset ;)
Click to expand...

Even if BD could saturate the current HT3 limits it would not be a reason not to put it on 890 because very little would make it happen anyway.
 
zoomee said:
Me :) ;) :) - ready and waiting dude lol

We've been through this debate of HT 3 v's HT3.1 at XS Forums - BD will NOT be able to saturate the current HT3 limits let alone the new one. If that was the case we would not have certain AM3+ mainboards based on the 890 Chipset ;)
Click to expand...
what i mean is using BD in a am3 board you've got no headroom on the CPU-NB/HT multipliers, because they will be running on they max 13x limits.
 
tommybhoy said:
I know, when BD touches down, more will use it though.

Just thought I would stock up on it since they were sooo cheap!
Click to expand...

lol - same here - I got an excellent deal on some Mushkin 8Gb 1866 9-10-9-24 @ £65. Sold my previous 2Gb x 4 corsair 1600mhz set for £60 - probably the best £5 upgrade I've ever made lol, this new set lets me go higher on cpu-nb clocks and lower on ram timing

In preperation for BD (which can run 1866Mhz natively) I'm currently running 1600Mhz @ 8-9-8-24/1T with cpu-nb @ 2800 instead of the previous 1600Mhz @ 9-9-9-24/2T with cpu-nb @ 2400.

@@gareth - arn't multiplier limits something from the CPU and not the mainboard though?
 
zoomee said:
@@gareth - arn't multiplier limits something from the CPU and not the mainboard though?
Click to expand...
the motherboard need to support it..

example, AM3 boards are HT 3.0 so the max multiplier is 13x , AM3+ boards are HT 3.1 so the max multiplier should be much higher maybe 16x or 17x when used with a am3+ chip, which should be the same for the cpu-nb

remember the am2 to am2+, the max multiplier on the am2 boards didn't go up when u used a am2+ chip.
 
Last edited:
gareth170 said:
the motherboard need to support it..

example, AM3 boards are HT 3.0 so the max multiplier is 13x , AM3+ boards are HT 3.1 so the max multiplier should be much higher maybe 16x or 17x when used with a am3+ chip, which should be the same for the cpu-nb

remember the am2 to am2+, the max multiplier on the am2 boards didn't go up when u used a am2+ chip.
Click to expand...

The HT is the link from the CPU to the mainboard/chipset - understandable if this is restricted by the mainboard.

I was under the impression the CPU-NB however is a component of the CPU / its cache/ and IMC so should be CPU limited?
 
Last edited:
Bleek said:
Is it?

Can you post the benchmarks of the retail CPU you've based this statement off. I must have missed them? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes it's well over-due, looking at leaked benches it's slower.

History tells me that when hardware is late over-due and sketchy information it's usually fail.


I hope I'm wrong but I can't see it.
 
lol most people wont even use 4gb max memory thats why its cheap .

even with multiple things open and with big things like games and photoshop i never use more than 3ish gig .

16 gb lol
 
~>Dg<~ said:
lol most people wont even use 4gb max memory thats why its cheap .

even with multiple things open and with big things like games and photoshop i never use more than 3ish gig .

16 gb lol
Click to expand...

With 6GB Ram i still have to have a swapfile as i've had the low memory warning without a swapfile.
 
zoomee said:
The HT is the link from the CPU to the mainboard/chipset - understandable if this is restricted by the mainboard.

I was under the impression the CPU-NB however is a component of the CPU / its cache/ and IMC so should be CPU limited?
Click to expand...
but surely the cpu-nb as to match the HT max multiplier limit, like it does now... or why didn't they do the cpu-nb multiplier with a much higher range like to 25x
 
Last edited:
Locky said:
Yes it's well over-due, looking at leaked benches it's slower.

History tells me that when hardware is late over-due and sketchy information it's usually fail.


I hope I'm wrong but I can't see it.
Click to expand...

Locky said:
didn't say anything about the athlon 64 did I.

have some :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: back
Click to expand...

The Athlon 64 had big delays too. The 64 bit Opterons were also released months before the desktop Athlon 64 CPUs too. Even websites like Anandtech were commenting on the non-appearance of the Athlon 64.

On top of this how many benchmarks of the HD4000,HD5000 and HD6000 series GPUs did we have prior to launch?? Ever since 2007 every single AMD launch has had any info released tightly controlled by AMD and on a need to know basis.

So,Bulldozer could be a fail or it could be a success. Until its launched and reviewed by multiple websites I cannot say either way.
 
Last edited:
Locky said:
Yes it's well over-due, looking at leaked benches it's slower.

History tells me that when hardware is late over-due and sketchy information it's usually fail.


I hope I'm wrong but I can't see it.
Click to expand...

As posted above, the Athlon was late and it was a game changer!

I'm as big a sceptic as anyone and I suggest reserving judgement until we get cold hard facts, the benchmarks to date have either been spurious or run on supposed engineering samples. Every detail has been paper thin, nothing worthy of a concrete defence.

Keeping in objective. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom