• 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!

Anyways, here's a pic of the chips found on another Forum.
Make of it what you will.
b9b5c1f5-800d-4d47-86ce-6dbe28d24773.jpg
 
seandog said:
it was stable for a CPU-Z screeny, doesnt meant that it could handle prime stressing tho...
Click to expand...

And doesnt mean it couldn't, we don't know yet. It could turn out that retail products are a total dog at clocking, or there have been other improvements, the event was still relevant in giving us a least some kind of official snippets of info though.
Ah well looks like we will find out in October now anyway, so hopefully we'll get more info the closer we get unless it gets dropped back further.
 
Martini1991 said:
Anyways, here's a pic of the chips found on another Forum.
Make of it what you will.
b9b5c1f5-800d-4d47-86ce-6dbe28d24773.jpg
Click to expand...

its from the beginning of the video thats been posted in here. And where I got my comments earlier about the 7ghz overclocks at 1.2/1.3 volts. Seemed insane! They 2 processors in question arent pictures there, but they are on that video.
 
wannabedamned said:
its from the beginning of the video thats been posted in here. And where I got my comments earlier about the 7ghz overclocks at 1.2/1.3 volts. Seemed insane!
Click to expand...

I somehow don't think that's what it means.
Given that one is 6.5GHZ at 2v.

If you notice, on one chip it's 8GHZ at a lower vcore than 6.1GHZ.

I posted that to prove that effectively we know nothing.
 
also before accusing me of being a 'troll' or anything like that, I have been a Pro-Bulldozer person for long time, all for technological evolution (hence why I dislike Greenpeace so much, but that is another debate altogether!) and understand that Bulldozer is the future of AMD. all for clever solutions to problems and I find the Bulldozer architecture pretty inspired in its simplicity and should take the fight to Intel quite nicely, especially considering its price point!

also the moon landing did nothing for me, was a publicity stunt if there ever was one, since then we have taken massive strides backwards rather than forward. it could have ushered in a new era but guess what, it didn't because people are afraid of the unknown and politics quite simply ruin our progression as a species.

breaking the land speed record did nothing either, someone breaks it, someone 'one ups' them and so on, don't understand the relevance in the real-world, like I said earlier a Ford Focus can go Mach 3 if you strap a solid rocket booster to it, but how is that remotely relevant to the motor industry for example or the people who buy the products?

here is a better way for me to put it, from a technical stand point, even though the chip is completely crippled and cooled by an ultra-exotic set-up then its pretty awesome achievement and yes it shows the potential of the process even at this young stage, but at the end of the day it still affects me in no way shape or form if or when I purchase a Bulldozer CPU, it affects you in no way shape or form either, so why am I getting called negative for being a realist? I been praising the development of Bulldozer since the early days of this thread and the first time I say something is irrelevant I get stick, cheers. :rolleyes:
 
By this time it is officially released, tested and benched, some of you are going to need new keyboards/fingers the amount you've posted in this beasty thread D:
 
6.5Ghz was the AMD world record for Phenom X4 according to a quick search, most retail chips at the time could barely break 3.8ghz and only now are reaching 4.0-4.2ghz fully stable and on reasonable cooling/voltages.

That's why I will await retail samples before getting excited about world records and sensationalist headlines.
 
mmj_uk said:
6.5Ghz was the AMD world record for Phenom X4 according to a quick search, most retail chips at the time could barely break 3.8ghz and only now are reaching 4.0-4.2ghz fully stable and on reasonable cooling/voltages.

That's why I will await retail samples before getting excited about world records and sensationalist headlines.
Click to expand...

Phenom II did 7GHZ+ didn't it? The dragon platform.

And I agree with 4.2GHZ fully stable, I got a 555 upto 4.37GHZ on a cheapo board and cooler.
If you mean Agena, I.E, Phenom, they blew.
 
Gashman said:
also before accusing me of being a 'troll' or anything like that, I have been a Pro-Bulldozer person for long time, all for technological evolution (hence why I dislike Greenpeace so much, but that is another debate altogether!) and understand that Bulldozer is the future of AMD. all for clever solutions to problems and I find the Bulldozer architecture pretty inspired in its simplicity and should take the fight to Intel quite nicely, especially considering its price point!

also the moon landing did nothing for me, was a publicity stunt if there ever was one, since then we have taken massive strides backwards rather than forward. it could have ushered in a new era but guess what, it didn't because people are afraid of the unknown and politics quite simply ruin our progression as a species.

breaking the land speed record did nothing either, someone breaks it, someone 'one ups' them and so on, don't understand the relevance in the real-world, like I said earlier a Ford Focus can go Mach 3 if you strap a solid rocket booster to it, but how is that remotely relevant to the motor industry for example or the people who buy the products?

here is a better way for me to put it, from a technical stand point, even though the chip is completely crippled and cooled by an ultra-exotic set-up then its pretty awesome achievement and yes it shows the potential of the process even at this young stage, but at the end of the day it still affects me in no way shape or form if or when I purchase a Bulldozer CPU, it affects you in no way shape or form either, so why am I getting called negative for being a realist? I been praising the development of Bulldozer since the early days of this thread and the first time I say something is irrelevant I get stick, cheers. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Some of the things you mention could effect you, maybe you just dont see it. Not in regards to a CPU but for an example take the Space program,

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html
 
Gashman said:
also before accusing me of being a 'troll' or anything like that, I have been a Pro-Bulldozer person for long time, all for technological evolution (hence why I dislike Greenpeace so much, but that is another debate altogether!) and understand that Bulldozer is the future of AMD. all for clever solutions to problems and I find the Bulldozer architecture pretty inspired in its simplicity and should take the fight to Intel quite nicely, especially considering its price point!

also the moon landing did nothing for me, was a publicity stunt if there ever was one, since then we have taken massive strides backwards rather than forward. it could have ushered in a new era but guess what, it didn't because people are afraid of the unknown and politics quite simply ruin our progression as a species.

breaking the land speed record did nothing either, someone breaks it, someone 'one ups' them and so on, don't understand the relevance in the real-world, like I said earlier a Ford Focus can go Mach 3 if you strap a solid rocket booster to it, but how is that remotely relevant to the motor industry for example or the people who buy the products?

here is a better way for me to put it, from a technical stand point, even though the chip is completely crippled and cooled by an ultra-exotic set-up then its pretty awesome achievement and yes it shows the potential of the process even at this young stage, but at the end of the day it still affects me in no way shape or form if or when I purchase a Bulldozer CPU, it affects you in no way shape or form either, so why am I getting called negative for being a realist? I been praising the development of Bulldozer since the early days of this thread and the first time I say something is irrelevant I get stick, cheers. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

regardless of if you do not care about the records broken, others do. Because you say its "irrelevant" doesnt make it so in the slightest. So when everyone is discussing it, and having a good discussion. You popping up going OMG ITS AN ELEPHANT!!!!! WHO CARES!!! How exactly is that helpful in anyway? And considering how much you dont care about any technological records or landmarks placed in history, going on your post there. Why bother posting atall about it? its obvious you just dont care too much about the advancements. And yes, records do come hand in hand with advancements.... Its just how the human race works. They want to put a flag on everest, and they want to consider an 8ghz+ overclock a world record. You dont care, Carry on not caring. Just hush up and let others discuss it
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
THerein lies the problem, they do exactly what you claim they don't.

They establish several things, they establish the architecture scales up to 2v very well, they establish there isn't a cold bug, you might not use phase change but quite a few people do. The LN2 cooling could have resulted in a chip that topped out at 6Ghz, didn't scale beyond 1.6V, and blew up at 1.7v....... it didn't, thats ALL very relevant information.

Lets say they ONLY did crap watercooling, and lets say at 1.5v they hit 5Ghz and couldn't go higher....... then stopped.

What stopped them, voltage, cooling, heat, clock speed, who knows, take your pick. By establishing exactly what the architecture can do, it answers all those questions, with better cooling more voltage will indeed allow higher clock speeds for those with better cooling, from a better high end air cooler, to high end water.

Thats the problem, you're completely wrong, it is relevant and you repeated ignore that and all the other info gather at the event. AMD can't help how other sites report it, nor is it their "fault" that the chip broke the record, it may have only hit 8Ghz and the headlines might have been 5.5Ghz on air, woo.

The event gave us plenty of useful info, and this has pretty much been pointed out by several people several times over. Now if this record was done in 6 months, when we already knew exactly how Bulldozer scaled on air, water, what its voltage limits were, then it would be pretty irrelevant. But most of the time when people tell you "X voltage is safe as long as temps are below Y", comes from people who test chips to their limit and kill them. This is the kind of overclocking that helps establish whats safe, the overclockers will continue to play with some of those chips for weeks, if some die and they were used at 1.8v, thats useful info, if the ones used at 2v are still going strong in 2 months at silly overclocks in 24/7 rigs, thats useful info.

When you come back with what amounts to "yeah, but its crap, its only two cores" comes across less as a genuine expression of opinion and far more as "hahah, Intel are better". When you repeatedly also ignore that Sandy can't come close to that record fully enabled, the previous record was a heavily crippled Intel chip and thats simple how world records are done, only around 30% of the chip was actually disabled and it would be more a case of available amps from the mobo than that the chip itself wasn't capable of doing it with all cores enabled. For instance, they didn't try each module individually, maybe one of the other 3 modules, or all of the were faster and they by chance got the least fast module.
Click to expand...

You argue my point toward the end of your paragraph by saying Sandy Bridge can't come close to that record....a record which that Phenom 2 came close to....yet we all know that Sandy Bridge is a far better chip than Phenom 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom