AMD FX 8-Core Processor Black Edition promo vid.

[Will Robinson]

Here's a link to the page...mmm 8 cores
http://sites.amd.com/us/promo/processors/Pages/fx-processor.aspx

 

[soccerballtux]

HOW WILL PEOPLE HANDLE THIS MUCH POWER?!?!??!


I'm kinda concerned how it seems most software can't scale to this many cores.
I'd say based on this website though that we're definitely shaping up for a September launch. I doubt they would do this if they were going to delay until December.

Kinda worried about the IPC though seeing how far they've had to bump the clocks.

 

[jvroig]

Kinda worried about the IPC though seeing how far they've had to bump the clocks.

As long as it reaches decent performance characteristics, we won't really care if they reach it through improved IPC or just mega clocks. This is a contrived and completely exaggerated example, but just to illustrate, so what if BD launches at 4.5GHz but offers a minimum 20% better performance than a 3.3GHz SB, and at the same price? IPC will be terrible in comparison, but out of the box performance is better anyway, and that's all users will notice. (of course, unless it has better OC headroom, us enthusiasts will be bothered, but OEMs won't be, and that's really all AMD and Intel are after)

Not saying IPC isn't important. I'm just trying to highlight the other side of the argument that says "performance is not just IPC, but IPC & final clocks combined".

I have no information on hand to declare whether the IPC is terrible or not, all I can remember is JF saying "IPC improved" and terrence125 saying "IPC decreases". I also have no idea what final clocks are. Therefore, I'm completely blind as to the performance characteristic of BD, and even if I had one of them confirmed (IPC or final clocks) I will still be blind because performance depends on both.

 

[Idontcare]

World's first native 8-core desktop processor

They are back to the "native" crap again, just can't help themselves I guess.

It is nice to see all the early boxart leaks were spot-on, gives me hope that some of the early benchmark leaks will also turn out to be spot-on.

 

[jvroig]

It is nice to see all the early boxart leaks were spot-on, gives me hope that some of the early benchmark leaks will also turn out to be spot-on.

Please remind me - where the early leaks actually good?

For the life of me, I can't actually recall "good" leaks. All I remember were disappointing ES performance, but I never really did keep track of them.

 

[Idontcare]

Please remind me - where the early leaks actually good?

For the life of me, I can't actually recall "good" leaks. All I remember were disappointing ES performance, but I never really did keep track of them.

This thread was loaded with some gems:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2134911

(too bad it was locked, it was actually an enjoyable thread)

 

[HeXen]

i have AMD quad and don't even fully use it.

 

[jvroig]

This thread was loaded with some gems:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2134911

(too bad it was locked, it was actually an enjoyable thread)

Oh, that thread. I remember being part of that at the start, and when it refused to die, again towards the end. Is HW2050 related to terrence125? They have the same IPC decreases song, not sure if they are actually one and the same, just different handles on different forums.

Right, hmmm... well, the "news" in that thread definitely paints a better picture for BD than those supposed ES sample performance I remember.

Even if they don't quite make it to "destroy SB" territory, there's still the "we allow traditional overclocking on all models" factor for us enthusiasts. I think the cheapest Intel I can buy now that is overclockable is $200 (2500K - is there anything cheaper released?), if AMD releases <$200 parts that can be overclocked to the same performance (or even just ~90&#37; performance for at most ~70% of the price), it should be a tempting offer for old-school overclockers who remember the days of the Celeron 300A and its OC potential and resulting performance rivaling that of far more expensive chips.

Of course, what would be even more awesome is if they do end up with nice overclockable parts AND actually deliver competitive out-of-the-box performance. If they managed to screw up the pricing of the 4850/4870 (too low, which was good for us, maybe not so much for them), they might do so again. They've had dumber decisions, anyway. I'm half-expecting them to re-hire Sanders and/or Ruiz anyday now, actually

 

[jvroig]

i have AMD quad and don't even fully use it.

I have an AMD hex and 50&#37; of the time I run it at low voltages with 4 cores disabled, but OC'd to 3.6, no turbo. Like now, while just "foruming".

But the rest of the time, I do use the extra performance it afforded me as a drop-in replacement to my old AM2+ platform that has served me for quite a while. Like when gaming and working.

You won't get any argument from me that for most general usage scenarios, we currently have more power (or more cores, maybe) than we need, but there are still those exceptions that do justify the need for next-gen tech.

 

[BD231]

HOW WILL PEOPLE HANDLE THIS MUCH POWER?!?!??

lol, classic.

As for the add ...., dunno if I like the movie vibe but if it works it works.

 

[notty22]

I'd say based on this website though that we're definitely shaping up for a September launch. I doubt they would do this if they were going to delay until December.

This site/video has been up over a month.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

WOWzers

 

[bryanW1995]

Oh, that thread. I remember being part of that at the start, and when it refused to die, again towards the end. Is HW2050 related to terrence125? They have the same IPC decreases song, not sure if they are actually one and the same, just different handles on different forums.

Right, hmmm... well, the "news" in that thread definitely paints a better picture for BD than those supposed ES sample performance I remember.

Even if they don't quite make it to "destroy SB" territory, there's still the "we allow traditional overclocking on all models" factor for us enthusiasts. I think the cheapest Intel I can buy now that is overclockable is $200 (2500K - is there anything cheaper released?), if AMD releases <$200 parts that can be overclocked to the same performance (or even just ~90% performance for at most ~70% of the price), it should be a tempting offer for old-school overclockers who remember the days of the Celeron 300A and its OC potential and resulting performance rivaling that of far more expensive chips.

Of course, what would be even more awesome is if they do end up with nice overclockable parts AND actually deliver competitive out-of-the-box performance. If they managed to screw up the pricing of the 4850/4870 (too low, which was good for us, maybe not so much for them), they might do so again. They've had dumber decisions, anyway. I'm half-expecting them to re-hire Sanders and/or Ruiz anyday now, actually

I find it sad that a company-killer like Ruiz was kept for so long (then sent to ruin GF) while a performer like Meyer was pushed out the door b/c he wasn't a yes-man. Of course, if I was jhh or an intel shareholder I'd find it rather hilarious.

 

[soccerballtux]

This thread was loaded with some gems:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2134911

(too bad it was locked, it was actually an enjoyable thread)

you have the power to change that...

 

[soccerballtux]

i have AMD quad and don't even fully use it.

+1. desperately want 8 cores at 4.5ghz though!!!

Does windows force certain threads onto the Intel turbo cores? I'm wondering how this is going to work for AMD. I don't have much faith in their ability to get the software part of this right...there's an ES video where I was watching CPU-z and it took like 2 seconds for the turbo to kick in and speed up. Not good.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Why dont they call it the invisibile edition, since they dont seem to be able to get the chip to market???

 

[jvroig]

Why dont they call it the invisibile edition, since they dont seem to be able to get the chip to market???

Because that name only makes sense until it actually gets to the market, afterwards they'll start needing a real name, and they will probably settle on "Black Edition" since it has been their traditional name for unlocked parts, sometimes also signifying "flagship" material. So they decided to skip the funny code names like "invisible edition" or "DNF edition" and just went ahead and called it the Black Edition.

It makes a lot more sense than "invisible edition", or your comment. So at least on this one thing, AMD did not make another dumb move.

 

[Markfw]

you have the power to change that...

Yes, he does. I think it in in deference to me, who locked it. The players would not stop trolling and fighting, and insulting one another. I warned that I would lock it if they didn't stop. They kept it up, and I locked it as promised.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Because that name only makes sense until it actually gets to the market, afterwards they'll start needing a real name, and they will probably settle on "Black Edition" since it has been their traditional name for unlocked parts, sometimes also signifying "flagship" material. So they decided to skip the funny code names like "invisible edition" or "DNF edition" and just went ahead and called it the Black Edition.

It makes a lot more sense than "invisible edition", or your comment. So at least on this one thing, AMD did not make another dumb move.

Are you kidding me??? Dont you have any sense of humor or understand sarcasm???

If you want a serious comment, here it is: I am tired of AMD making all the marketing ploys and claims about great performance and not being able to deliver the chip. AMD, just shut up until the chip comes out and we get performance figures.

 

[bryanW1995]

AMD has learned from JHH: If you have nothing to offer RIGHT NOW, talk about future offerings. I keep waiting for an AMD marketing rep to stage a BD launch event using a cardboard box...

 

[bunnyfubbles]

As long as it reaches decent performance characteristics, we won't really care if they reach it through improved IPC or just mega clocks. This is a contrived and completely exaggerated example, but just to illustrate, so what if BD launches at 4.5GHz but offers a minimum 20% better performance than a 3.3GHz SB, and at the same price? IPC will be terrible in comparison, but out of the box performance is better anyway, and that's all users will notice. (of course, unless it has better OC headroom, us enthusiasts will be bothered, but OEMs won't be, and that's really all AMD and Intel are after)

Not saying IPC isn't important. I'm just trying to highlight the other side of the argument that says "performance is not just IPC, but IPC & final clocks combined".

I have no information on hand to declare whether the IPC is terrible or not, all I can remember is JF saying "IPC improved" and terrence125 saying "IPC decreases". I also have no idea what final clocks are. Therefore, I'm completely blind as to the performance characteristic of BD, and even if I had one of them confirmed (IPC or final clocks) I will still be blind because performance depends on both.

except it does matter and we will care

things would be less terrible in your example where the chip is 20% faster out of the box, but that's an incredibly optimistic example. In a more likely scenario, chances are BD is going to be a 125W TDP chip vs. a 95W TDP SandyBridge, and really only be just as fast (not faster) out of the box and with a heckuva lot less overclocking headroom and a clear loser in terms of total potential performance.

I really hope BD turns out to be one of the better scenarios like yours, but from what I've seen and heard about Bulldozer I'm not enthusiastic about what we're actually going to get.

 

[jvroig]

If you want a serious comment, here it is: I am tired of AMD making all the marketing ploys and claims about great performance and not being able to deliver the chip. AMD, just shut up until the chip comes out and we get performance figures.

The problem being in the real world, business doesn't work that way. In fact, more things are sold because of better marketing rather than outright being better than all other competing products. And this is not just in the IT industry. It is true everywhere.

In fact, even if they had a poor performer, shutting up is exactly what they don't want to do. Poor product (meaning no word-of-mouth following will even happen) + poor marketing effort will ensure pitiful sales. If that was going to be the battle plan, why even bother?

You don't have to believe me. There are thousands of MBA's around who are willing to give you the same advice for a generous consulting fee.

If anything, AMD should learn from Intel that great marketing (like the Intel tune and the Blue Man Group thing) needs to accompany a great product, and up their marketing some more. Seeing as to how a good number of people probably can recognize the Intel brand, sometimes even the tune, while far less know AMD or that it is even an American company, their marketing is still not enough.


And now that I've dealt with the meat of the issue, let's return to the peripheral issue of:

Are you kidding me??? Dont you have any sense of humor or understand sarcasm???

1.) Not kidding.
2.) I do have a sense of humor, but your post was so unfunny that it did not register.
3.) I do understand sarcasm, and while I did realize you were trying to use sarcasm to make a point, I found the point to be significantly wrong and out of place that I decided on expending the effort on pointing out how ridiculous it is.

 

[jvroig]

except it does matter and we will care

things would be less terrible in your example where the chip is 20&#37; faster out of the box, but that's an incredibly optimistic example. In a more likely scenario, chances are BD is going to be a 125W TDP chip vs. a 95W TDP SandyBridge, and really only be just as fast (not faster) out of the box and with a heckuva lot less overclocking headroom and a clear loser in terms of total potential performance.

I really hope BD turns out to be one of the better scenarios like yours, but from what I've seen and heard about Bulldozer I'm not enthusiastic about what we're actually going to get.

Not really arguing about predicting how BD will perform. My only point there was the concern over IPC because of the perceived AMD effort to increase clockspeeds, when in fact, even with good IPC, it is never a bad idea to still work on clockspeeds, since both go hand-in-hand in accounting for performance.

Given the lack of real information, I don't really care to speculate about anything about BD.

As for the part where "we" will care, I certainly agree with you, but we are a very small minority. I did address that already, saying that we enthusiasts may not necessarily be happy with the BD product even if it becomes a marketable success (which will be determined by OEMs) since we do have lots of other considerations that don't matter to probably 90% or more of the target market.

 

[Mopetar]

you have the power to change that...

Let it rest in piece. There was too much in the one thread anyhow, making it almost impossible to keep track of what had been talked about, etc. Towards the end it was just going around in circles repeating things that had already been discussed 30 pages ago. At least I don't think it was ever Godwined, surprisingly enough.

 

[Schmide]

you have the power to change that...

I'm sure if you re-read the whole thread, create a flow chart of all the posters interactions with a 10 page single spaced synopsis, and submit it in triplicate to the powers that be, it could be possibly unlocked.