-
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
You'll only wonder 'what if?' if you go for the slower chip
Then probably get the larger at some point. May as well take the pinch first up and sit there in contentedness that you got the best that you could at the time.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,083
- Location
- Leeds/Cyprus
So speed aside the record shows that these things will probably also run pretty well underclocked and undervolted. Unless I completely misunderstood how electronics work of course, I'm no engineer! 
But if this is the case, then no doubt we'll see BD-based chips denting Atom's market share in netbooks and "ultrabooks" (or "big netbooks" as I like to call them
). What I'm curious about is, do you think they'll go smaller? Are we likely to see a 2-core BD module powering something like a tablet for instance? There are x86 versions of both Android and Meego brewing, after all (though I'm not sure how easy it would be for them to catch on, seeing as most programs would need recompiling to work on x86 so they'd probably start off with empty app stores), and although Intel have been talking the talk for years they have yet to really step up and compete with ARM.
@jennidc IF AMD finally announce a launch date soon, and IF that launch date isn't too far into the future and thereby force me to go SB, then I personally would go for a mid-range chip, maybe even low-end, based on the fact that, according to what they said, random samples of chips would all reach 5GHz on air. So while you'd no doubt squeeze out a few extra MHz off a top-end chip, there wouldn't be that much in it. (If what they said in that article is true of course, and if I haven't misunderstood - they might've taken a sample of top-end chips for all I know, not just random BDs from all bins!)
But if this is the case, then no doubt we'll see BD-based chips denting Atom's market share in netbooks and "ultrabooks" (or "big netbooks" as I like to call them). What I'm curious about is, do you think they'll go smaller? Are we likely to see a 2-core BD module powering something like a tablet for instance? There are x86 versions of both Android and Meego brewing, after all (though I'm not sure how easy it would be for them to catch on, seeing as most programs would need recompiling to work on x86 so they'd probably start off with empty app stores), and although Intel have been talking the talk for years they have yet to really step up and compete with ARM.@jennidc IF AMD finally announce a launch date soon, and IF that launch date isn't too far into the future and thereby force me to go SB, then I personally would go for a mid-range chip, maybe even low-end, based on the fact that, according to what they said, random samples of chips would all reach 5GHz on air. So while you'd no doubt squeeze out a few extra MHz off a top-end chip, there wouldn't be that much in it. (If what they said in that article is true of course, and if I haven't misunderstood - they might've taken a sample of top-end chips for all I know, not just random BDs from all bins!)
Last edited:
An 8 core chip with 2 cores enabled beat everything else on the list (all single core Intel chips with practically everything disabled). That has to have some kind of significance, don't you think?
Besides, at the event, they stated that the best they got on air was a 5.5Ghz boot into windows (though not fully stable). That's pretty amazing for an 8 core chip which has JUST started production (i.e. process isn't as highly tuned as it will be later).
An 8 core chip running only 2 cores is a 2 core chip for all intent and purposes. *shrug*
5.5 boot into windows means nothing when it's not stable really?
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,584
- Location
- God's own country
I honestly believe that some people just don't care because it's an AMD chip. If it was an Intel chip it would be highly impressive and indicative of the progress in technology that Intel had made.
I honestly believe that some people just don't care because it's an AMD chip. If it was an Intel chip it would be highly impressive and indicative of the progress in technology that Intel had made.
Sad but true.
AMD is such a small company compared to Intel (about 70% smaller). I guess most of us just like to support only megacorporations..
I can boot into windows, I can even runn benchmarks at 5.3Ghz but IMO, 24/7 Prime stable is all that counts. I just hope the high end BD compete with the 2600K's!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,371
- Location
- Dormanstown.
The 8150 should outpace the 2600k in any case you'd opt for a 2600k over a 2500k.
I honestly believe that some people just don't care because it's an AMD chip. If it was an Intel chip it would be highly impressive and indicative of the progress in technology that Intel had made.
I could care less if it's Intel or AMD. Liquid Nitrogen and Helium overclocks are always exciting. What gets me is when people believe these overclocks say anything about real world overclocking and performance. For example Phenom 2 does great under sub-zero temperatures but we all know it's not that exciting under air or even water.
Are you kidding? There are quite a few Sandy Bridge 5GHz+ clocks that are perfectly stable. Not with 1/4 of the CPU disabled and barely stable enough for a CPU-Z screenshot
Ok I think I understand, so your 2500k can only do 4.5Ghz on all cores at once according to your sig?
That's what I have it set to. Dynamic core clocking is a great feature that a lot of people don't take advantage of for some reason. I have benched at 5.4GHz with all 4 cores before though on my little cheap 27 dollar air cooler....and can do 5GHz stable but temps are a tad too high for my liking (88C in IBT)
I couldn't care less whether it who is breaking the record, at the end of the day it still means absolutely nothing to the end user. are we all going to be getting these sorts of speeds? no, are we all going to be using liquid nitrogen/helium cooling? no, are we going to be using crippled processors? no, so what is the relevance!
the whole 'it did it with two cores...' is also a load of irrelevant rubbish as well, because individual 'cores' cannot be deactivated, only modules can and since the processor was intended to compete on a module vs. core sort of stage, again not sure what the massive deal is? so in terms of Bulldozer that is running like a single core Sandy Bridge, its just each 'core' happens to be two 'cores' sharing a common resource pool. the whole purpose of Bulldozer was one module vs. one core/virtual core by streamlining how much space a 'core' took and combining common components.
at the end of the day it is a severely crippled processor running on ultra exotic cooling that 99.9% of people have no access to, running at unsafe 'suicidal' voltages in an environment that nobody cares to recreate for what is probably a tiny amount of time compared to that or normal processor usage. so can we all take a step back to the real world and get back to discussing relevant Bulldozer based matters rather than hyperbole...?
the whole 'it did it with two cores...' is also a load of irrelevant rubbish as well, because individual 'cores' cannot be deactivated, only modules can and since the processor was intended to compete on a module vs. core sort of stage, again not sure what the massive deal is? so in terms of Bulldozer that is running like a single core Sandy Bridge, its just each 'core' happens to be two 'cores' sharing a common resource pool. the whole purpose of Bulldozer was one module vs. one core/virtual core by streamlining how much space a 'core' took and combining common components.
at the end of the day it is a severely crippled processor running on ultra exotic cooling that 99.9% of people have no access to, running at unsafe 'suicidal' voltages in an environment that nobody cares to recreate for what is probably a tiny amount of time compared to that or normal processor usage. so can we all take a step back to the real world and get back to discussing relevant Bulldozer based matters rather than hyperbole...?
cranky intel user not liking AMD's new offering taking over the WR.
No need
much trolling?
cranky??
Here some facts amd user:
Intel 6 core,all cores OC'ed to ~7.1Ghz,which is proper OC,not some advertising circus on 2 cores (which not probably even stable for 2 minutes,just cpu-z screenie
amd's "wr" is 120mhz higher than Intel's few year record - yes,thats big achievement for amd's 6y in development bull-dozzer.
Cant wait for "real" bill-dozzer results,not some amd made handbrakes
No need
Last edited:
WIN.
Not really in the least bit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
How exactly? Even if his processor wasnt capable, which it is if you check out his follow up post. his initial statement didnt include himself anyway. It was a generic statement. One thats true, A hell of a lot of Sandy processors can hit 5ghz, Cooling permitted!
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing springs to mind.