• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

BD release date?

djshortsleeve

djshortsleeve

Member
Sorry to add another thread, but all others are bogged down with arguing and fan boy talk.

When is the release date per latest reports?
 
feb 2012.
but thats ok since a working stepping of sb-e wont be out until at least then
 
Last edited:
No reports, but Oct 12 seems to be the strongest supported rumor in the community.

edit: bunnyfubbles beat me to it 😀
 
does anyone know if this chip is used in the new iphone?

So if you keep this up you're going to have all the time in the world to go wait for the new iPhone, because you won't be posting here
-ViRGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AMD has decided to drop the CPU business and is now pursuing the polygraph business instead.

Their new project codename: booldozer
 
adam_the_giant said:
I will be ordering a 8150 on release day
Click to expand...

If I were you I'd wait. The FX Six-Cores look to be barely faster than the Phenom II X6. If that's the case, a bit of an improvement in single-threaded and a decent improvement in multi-threaded for the Eight-Cores.

Also, the FX-8120 seems to be much better for the money if you're gonna overclock.
 
Ask this guy:

flying_pig.jpg
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
If I were you I'd wait. The FX Six-Cores look to be barely faster than the Phenom II X6. If that's the case, a bit of an improvement in single-threaded and a decent improvement in multi-threaded for the Eight-Cores.

Also, the FX-8120 seems to be much better for the money if you're gonna overclock.
Click to expand...

How did supposedly experienced commenters on this forum fall so hard for the "8 cores" argument. This is a 4 module CPU and the "6 core" chip is a 3 module chip. AMD calling them "cores" is for marketing to laymen. More cores is better right? This is a 4 module chip designed with some extra hardware that helps with some multi-threaded applications. It's closer to a 4 core hyper-threaded cpu than a true 8 core cpu. This is what Anand will say when his article comes out. And I am disappointed to see all the veterans on this forum not point that out. The chip will perform like a 4 core chip in most applications and AMD is pricing it against 4 core chips. It's performance will be all over the place because on some benches it will act like a 4 core chip, and on others it will act like an 8 core chip. You'll need to look at the apps you run and react accordingly. In games, this thing will look like a 4 core chip because games don't typically use more than 4 cores. The really interesting results will be for the 3 module chip in games threaded for 4 cores. There you will be able to see how much those extra "cores" help out. I think you'll see those extra cores are good for 0-85% speed improvement with most apps getting only a bit more than 12% extra performance. That's how much extra silicon the extra hardware takes, and that should be the baseline performance increase in many apps. Otherwise, it's wasted silicon.
 
Hubb1e said:
How did supposedly experienced commenters on this forum fall so hard for the "8 cores" argument. This is a 4 module CPU and the "6 core" chip is a 3 module chip. AMD calling them "cores" is for marketing to laymen. More cores is better right? This is a 4 module chip designed with some extra hardware that helps with some multi-threaded applications. It's closer to a 4 core hyper-threaded cpu than a true 8 core cpu. This is what Anand will say when his article comes out. And I am disappointed to see all the veterans on this forum not point that out. The chip will perform like a 4 core chip in most applications and AMD is pricing it against 4 core chips. It's performance will be all over the place because on some benches it will act like a 4 core chip, and on others it will act like an 8 core chip. You'll need to look at the apps you run and react accordingly. In games, this thing will look like a 4 core chip because games don't typically use more than 4 cores. The really interesting results will be for the 3 module chip in games threaded for 4 cores. There you will be able to see how much those extra "cores" help out. I think you'll see those extra cores are good for 0-85% speed improvement with most apps getting only a bit more than 12% extra performance. That's how much extra silicon the extra hardware takes, and that should be the baseline performance increase in many apps. Otherwise, it's wasted silicon.
Click to expand...

Well if you have been reading when BD was first announced, the forum folks argued for a few months on what we should call BD (do we call them cores, modules, etc) and over time it just worked out that most refer to them as 8-core or 6-core or whatever, since it is easier than constantly flopping around terminology. Because we are veteran computer enthusiasts, we actually do know what the other person is referring to when they say and 8-core BD, so your implication that we somehow are all suckers that fell for marketing is not true, we simply had to call it something, and we are aware of both the pros and the cons (as much as we can pre-release) of the design AMD is going forward with.
 
Well, as you can see this was my first post, and while I browse this forum once in awhile, I just saw so many people keep saying that this 8 core chip sucks because AMD can't compete core for core. I think the term "core" is misleading a lot of people here who over time forgot it's part of a module. My apologies to reasonable people (as I can see you are a libertarian which is a more reasonable party than any other) but as I've looked here for some useful information on whether I should wait for Bulldozer, all I can see are arguments that AMDs 8 cores suck because they can't compete against 4 of Intels. Well duh, it's really a 4 core chip with some apparently effective marketing.
 
imaheadcase said:
SB-E is suppose to be out in October..
Click to expand...

SB-E is having trouble with vt-d, they either need a new stepping or they won't be able to offer it in the first run of chips. Everybody has issues when they launch something this cool/new/advanced/etc, the difference is that intel is so far ahead that they can afford a few hiccups while AMD has run out of margin for error.

As stated the latest rumored launch date is Oct 12. I must admit that I was tempted to write a "2017" or whatever after that, but I really think that we're close now. From reading some of Apoppin's posts the other day, I think that he has one and is under NDA right now about it. So Oct 12 is probably a reasonable guess, with volume shipments later in Oct or perhaps dragging into November.
 
bryanW1995 said:
SB-E is having trouble with vt-d, they either need a new stepping or they won't be able to offer it in the first run of chips. Everybody has issues when they launch something this cool/new/advanced/etc, the difference is that intel is so far ahead that they can afford a few hiccups while AMD has run out of margin for error.

As stated the latest rumored launch date is Oct 12. I must admit that I was tempted to write a "2017" or whatever after that, but I really think that we're close now. From reading some of Apoppin's posts the other day, I think that he has one and is under NDA right now about it. So Oct 12 is probably a reasonable guess, with volume shipments later in Oct or perhaps dragging into November.
Click to expand...


But the vt-d has nothing to do with anything important for people buying the chip, its nothing to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top