• 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!

AMD CPUs tend to do badly in PCMark Vantage and the A8 seems to have a CPU similar in processing power to a Phenom II X4. Considering it lacks L3 cache and has a TDP of 100W with a 400 shader IGP it is actually not too bad IMHO.
 
Jokester said:
Certainly the 3dmark scores look good if you ignore that it's using the, what's very likely, far superior on-board GPU on the BD chips. PC mark though tells another story.

Edit: And if that's true, Ivybridge will be just round the corner as well.
Click to expand...

Hasn't Ivy been delayed to 2012?
 
davieg said:
Jokester, A-series APU's aren't BD chips yet, theyre still going off the K10(.5?) Arch.
As regards to them not being able to get the first steppings of BD to the clocks they wanted them at, surely they must have tested them? Or do they design a chip and hope it will get to a certain clock on wishes of moondust and fairy wings?
Didnt JF say that a new stepping is a very costly exercise?
Click to expand...

Toms Hardware says that the motherboard companies had B0 CPUs and since the 890FX and 990FX are basically the same they simply could be samples for validation. B0 is very early silicon AFAIK.

However,Anandtech has said B1 CPUs also have problems. He could be right but TBH it is hard to say whether these websites are just improving the story a bit for more hits.
 
for some reason the tomshardware info doesn't show usb3 but i've seen many slides that show it does by default support 2xUSB3. Most manufacturers have 4xUSB3 connections, 2 on the rear and 2 on the board for front case usb3 ports.
 
The currently available B0 and B1 stepping Zambezi/Bulldozer processors can function at around 2.50GHz/3.50GHz (nominal/turbo) clock-speeds and at such frequency they cannot deliver performance AMD considers competitive, a person with knowledge of the situation said on Monday. As a consequence, AMD needs to tune the design of the processor and create B2 stepping of the chip with better clock-speed potential amid similar thermal design power (TDP), which will take several months to complete. Therefore, the Sunnyvale, California-based chip designer will release its highly-anticipated Bulldozer processors for desktops in September, not in June, as planned.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...lock_Speed_of_FX_Bulldozer_Chips_Sources.html

If these turns out to be reliable info, then I feel bad for AMD...
 
That is very disappointing to hear. Sandybridge it will be then. I really wanted AMD to deliver, some competition would liven up the CPU market. Sadly this won't be the case.
 
Andrei23 said:
The currently available B0 and B1 stepping Zambezi/Bulldozer processors can function at around 2.50GHz/3.50GHz (nominal/turbo) clock-speeds and at such frequency they cannot deliver performance AMD considers competitive, a person with knowledge of the situation said on Monday. As a consequence, AMD needs to tune the design of the processor and create B2 stepping of the chip with better clock-speed potential amid similar thermal design power (TDP), which will take several months to complete. Therefore, the Sunnyvale, California-based chip designer will release its highly-anticipated Bulldozer processors for desktops in September, not in June, as planned.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...lock_Speed_of_FX_Bulldozer_Chips_Sources.html

If these turns out to be reliable info, then I feel bad for AMD...
Click to expand...

They probably nicked the info off Anandtech(The xbitlabs link was posted on the previous page).

The Toms Hardware article said it was B0 CPUs which the motherboard companies had. However,Anandtech and xbitlabs seem to have added B1 too. They could be true but improving the story would help them too. At least Toms Hardware named their sources. The others did not.
 
the more i read news about this mysterious bulldozer chip (delays,performance issues..etc) the more i feel happy that we still have intel to deliver top performance chips,if it wasn't for them we will all be using the inferior phenom chips for the next decade or two.
 
as905 said:
the more i read news about this mysterious bulldozer chip (delays,performance issues..etc) the more i feel happy that we still have intel to deliver top performance chips,if it wasn't for them we will all be using the inferior phenom chips for the next decade or two.
Click to expand...
Yeah but we wouldn't know what we were missing, tbh phenoms seem to cope with most things anyway.
 
as905 said:
the more i read news about this mysterious bulldozer chip (delays,performance issues..etc) the more i feel happy that we still have intel to deliver top performance chips,if it wasn't for them we will all be using the inferior phenom chips for the next decade or two.
Click to expand...

Cray is using Interlagos in the XK6 supercomputer. Hence, if they were so terrible they would have used the older AMD processors or based the system on the Intel equivalent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom