• 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.

Confirmed: AMD will delay BD launch again now to Oct. 2011

lol, 100mhz turbo boost? must be made that way to stay under that magic 125w

edit: at least the delays are getting shorter. We've gone from a 90 day delay to a 1 month delay... perhaps the next one will only be a one week delay? then yaay no delay!
 
Last edited:
hey, looking at the 4170.... i'm assuming no but will ask anyway: does the higher tdp mean anything to overclocking enthusiasts as most are in these forums? in the means of oc limit? doesnt right? 4100 should match 4170 oc'd in same setup (give or take to accomodate for each chip being different)
 
lau808 said:
maybe the 125w tdp 4170 is to compete with 25k no? lol make up for assumed inferior ipc...
Click to expand...

This is the most logical conclusion.

The 4170 is meant to performance-compete with the 2500K...which would mean that it takes 4.2GHz on a Bulldozer core to match the performance of a 3.3 GHz SandyBridge core.

On such a footing, and given the TDP rating, performance/W would out the window for the 4170 compared to the 2500K.

In terms of OC'ing the 4170...the 100MHz turbo highly suggests they've already clocked all the headroom out of the product. So an OC'ed 2500K is probably gonna blow an OC'ed 4170 out of the water because the 2500K is gonna clock to 4.2GHz territory whereas the 4170 is not likely to see the 5.5GHz it needs to remain competitive (otherwise the turbo bins would presumably be a lot higher).

All just speculation of course.
 
Idontcare said:
This is the most logical conclusion.

The 4170 is meant to performance-compete with the 2500K...
Click to expand...

Are you sure? The 2500k has been around for a while and AMD has had plenty of time to respond to it. Are you suggesting that AMD has only recently decided to release a SKU to compete with the 2500k, possibly enabled by better yields or such? It doesn't look like much else has changed.
 
nonameo said:
Are you sure? The 2500k has been around for a while and AMD has had plenty of time to respond to it. Are you suggesting that AMD has only recently decided to release a SKU to compete with the 2500k, possibly enabled by better yields or such? It doesn't look like much else has changed.
Click to expand...

This is AMD's charge on the market Intel is going to vacate when it retires the final bits of C2 silicon.

😉
 
images
 
Stinks if true. Still I wonder what the email I got means. Sept 13th is a big announcement AMD says.? :\
 
As I read it it says the 4.2 ghz model should be a good cpu for its price.

The SB 2500k will all O/C to 4.5 using about the same power as these 4 core AMD chips . I think AMD intends this chip to go against a i3 the K models are just to much for AMD to compete with at 4 cores
 
Tsavo said:
4 core has same tdp as 8 core?
Click to expand...

Its a clear sign that AMD is pushing the frequency limit of BD design. If you look at the list of BD CPU that can hit 4 GHz, they all require a 125W thermal rating. Remember with BD the Turbo Frequency represents the max speed (if TDP permits) when half the cores are uses. You see the 8 core FX-8150 (3.6/4.2 GHz) has the exact same speed and thermal as the 4 core FX-4170 (4.2/4.3 GHz) when 4 cores are used.

So if we look at just the 4 Core BD CPU we have a 3.6GHz @ 95W and a 4.2GHz @ 125W. We can roughly estimate that to get (17%) 600 MHz more the thermals had to go up (32%) 30W. Its not a good sign when power required is increasing twice as fast as frequency.
 
formulav8 said:
Stinks if true. Still I wonder what the email I got means. Sept 13th is a big announcement AMD says.? :\
Click to expand...


Sure is......it's when they have a group cry about BD being again delayed and "celebrate" Intel releasing 16 "new" SB cpus.

Or maybe celebrating the fact that Intel hasn't released IB yet?

AMd's gone down a lonely, dark road. I can almost foresee AMD becoming a gpu company and dropping cpus......AMD was only competitive with Intel for what, 2 1/2-3 years out of their entire existence?
 
Idontcare said:
All just speculation of course.
Click to expand...

I hold similar opinion as you have expressed in your post. I also feel that BD won't really take off until they move it to 28nm/22nm and get those clocks way up. It's just painful to see what total lack of competition to Intel has done for us consumers: Intel is riding the wave with $220 2500k and $315 2600k for what looks like to be 1 year now. Before that, i5 750 --> i5 760 / i7 860 --> i7 870 / i7 920 --> i7 930 is all we got basically after what seemed like a year.

We really need some competition.
 
Meghan54 said:
Sure is......it's when they have a group cry about BD being again delayed and "celebrate" Intel releasing 16 "new" SB cpus.

Or maybe celebrating the fact that Intel hasn't released IB yet?

AMd's gone down a lonely, dark road. I can almost foresee AMD becoming a gpu company and dropping cpus......AMD was only competitive with Intel for what, 2 1/2-3 years out of their entire existence?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm missing something, then. The Athlon XP, Athlon 64, and Athlon 64 X2 were competitive with the Pentium 4 and Pentium D, respectively. That alone accounts for four years. The Phenom II X4 was competitive with the Core 2 Quad, and the Phenom II X6 was competitive with Nehalem Core i7. That's six years. It's this year that AMD has been completely outclassed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top