• 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.

Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

Page 57 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
DeathReborn said:
Is this more to your liking? It even has extra protection for the user. People can add their own text to it as they see fit.

idfbulldozer.jpg
Click to expand...

that's a minefield clearer...or whatever they are called. not bulldozer...
 
trollolo said:
but these aren't server-grade processors, they're consumer bound
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? It's an Opteron. 16-cores. Server.

The desktop BD variants only go up to 8 in the current desktop roadmap.

So 16-cores = no joke. It's not for your PC. It's for our servers.
 
sdifox said:
Opteron 1 series. Dual core socket 939.

<- has a 165
Click to expand...
That was also sold as a workstation or server CPU (both things which can profit from lots of cores). The 939 opterons were sold as low-end servers (cheap mb+cpu for cheap servers, not the worst idea I'd think), but that really doesn't make them consumer CPUs.
 
sdifox said:
Opteron 1 series. Dual core socket 939.
Click to expand...

They just offered cheap low-end versions of Opterons (just as Intel did for their Xeon at least a year ago or so), but it doesn't mean it is "consumer" grade. It's still part of their server line, even if you decide to buy an affordable server-grade CPU for your desktop it doesn't make it consumer-grade.
 
Voo said:
That was also sold as a workstation or server CPU (both things which can profit from lots of cores). The 939 opterons were sold as low-end servers (cheap mb+cpu for cheap servers, not the worst idea I'd think), but that really doesn't make them consumer CPUs.
Click to expand...

jvroig said:
They just offered cheap low-end versions of Opterons (just as Intel did for their Xeon at least a year ago or so), but it doesn't mean it is "consumer" grade. It's still part of their server line, even if you decide to buy an affordable server-grade CPU for your desktop it doesn't make it consumer-grade.
Click to expand...

The distinction between Opteron server and desktop chips was the socket. And the fact that the 939 chips were not multi cpu capable.
 
AMD and Intel are clear with their brandings with regards to what is consumer and what is business/server grade - Xeon and Opteron are not consumer grade.

Both companies have released, at one time or another, lower-end SKUs for both server brands - such as that Opteron 165, or Intel's Xeon X3430 that fit in 1156.

It doesn't make it "consumer-grade". It just so happens that, unlike the more expensive of their brethren, some consumers MAY be able to afford them, particularly if they are meant to be compatible with more commodity parts (for cheap low-end servers offered by HP/Dell/etc, or even whitebox servers built from scratch like we do at our company). They were not meant to be consumer CPUs, and aren't.

I don't know why anyone would want to argue this point.
Consumers = Core i3/5/7, Pentium, Celeron, Phenom, Athlon, Sempron.
Servers/Workstation/"Business Class" = Xeon, Opteron.

I don't recall a time that Intel / AMD ever wavered with this distinction, or ever implied or suggested that they will start offering their prestigious Xeon / Opteron brands to the consumer market.
 
ShadowVVL said:
So will we be seeing any dual socket boards for Zambezi like the old quad fx?
Click to expand...

Unlikely, owing to the fact that the sockets are not interchangeable. (AM3 vs. G34)

Its not like the situation with Intel where they keep the socket/chipset compatibility there for 1S/2S systems and the desktop versions of the chips.

My preference would be that instead of investing time/effort/resources into developing a 2S consumer board for dual-socket Zambezi's which would have a ~280W TDP as a system (2x140W TDP) that instead they just bin out some monster FX chips which have 280W TDP for a single socket.

We can cool 280W chips, they do it all the time with GPU's and even then they manage to cram the coolers into the space of 2 or 3 PCIE slots, not even some 6" tall cooling monster.

So keep that top-end TDP at a system integration level, but slam a 300W behemoth CPU into it.

That's what my QX6700 chip basically was, when OC'ed to 4GHz it used about 270W. Cooling was manageable and the desktop performance was better than trying to go for 2xQ6600 or some such.
 
chihlidog said:
Was the second one an intentional double negative? Im guessing not, but hey one never knows. You marketing types are crafty.

Can you give us an indication of how likely desktop BD is to be released on or about September 19?
Click to expand...

He can't comment on that. I wish he could, but it's not going to be possible given his position.... sigh....
 
Idontcare said:
Unlikely, owing to the fact that the sockets are not interchangeable. (AM3 vs. G34)

Its not like the situation with Intel where they keep the socket/chipset compatibility there for 1S/2S systems and the desktop versions of the chips.

My preference would be that instead of investing time/effort/resources into developing a 2S consumer board for dual-socket Zambezi's which would have a ~280W TDP as a system (2x140W TDP) that instead they just bin out some monster FX chips which have 280W TDP for a single socket.

We can cool 280W chips, they do it all the time with GPU's and even then they manage to cram the coolers into the space of 2 or 3 PCIE slots, not even some 6" tall cooling monster.

So keep that top-end TDP at a system integration level, but slam a 300W behemoth CPU into it.

That's what my QX6700 chip basically was, when OC'ed to 4GHz it used about 270W. Cooling was manageable and the desktop performance was better than trying to go for 2xQ6600 or some such.
Click to expand...

yeah that kinda makes sense.

I was thinking maybe amd would make a 2S enthusiast platform to compete with SB-E.
 
Anyone see this article over at Toms posted today:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-bulldozer-cpu-fx-series-motherboard,13342.html

Basically says this: (Name, Freq, L2cache, core name, stepping, thermal envelope, system bus, bios revision)

"AMD FX-8150 3600MHz 1MBx8 Bulldozer B2 125W 5200 F4
AMD FX-8120 3100MHz 1MBx8 Bulldozer B2 125W 5200 F4
AMD FX-8120 3100MHz 1MBx8 Bulldozer B2 95W 5200 F4
AMD FX-8100 2800MHz 1MBx8 Bulldozer B2 95W 5200 F4
AMD FX-6100 3300MHz 1MBx6 Bulldozer B2 95W 5200 F4
AMD FX-4100 3600MHz 1MBx4 Bulldozer B2 95W 5200 F4


The FX-8150 is clocked at 3.6 GHz, 8-cores, TDP of 125W and system bus at 5200 MT/s (up from 4000 MT/s of previous generations). You'll notice the FX-8120 listed both TDP of 125W and 95W. You should expect on initial launch, the 125W TDP models will be the first to the market, later followed by the 95W TDP chips.

The FX-6100 is clocked at 3.3 GHz, 6-cores, TDP of 95W, along with system bus at 5200 MT/s. The FX-4100 is clocked at 3.6 GHz, 4-cores, TDP of 95W, along with bus at 5200 MT/s. One might begin to piece together that the FX-6100 and FX-4100 are likely to be Zambezi with 1 module and 2 modules disabled, respectively, rather than native 3-module / 2-module dies. (Do I see an unlocked FX-4100 to an FX-8150 in my future?)

All CPUs feature 8MB L3 cache and are based on 32nm process"
 
Some interesting info in this thread. I really have high hopes for BD, I really have my fingers crossed that they deliver a knockout chip. Having a viable competetor would do nothing but good things for the enthusiast community..
 
blackened23 said:
Some interesting info in this thread. I really have high hopes for BD, I really have my fingers crossed that they deliver a knockout chip. Having a viable competetor would do nothing but good things for the enthusiast community..
Click to expand...

Ah, I was like you... once... before my expectations of BD became subterranean. :'(

I'm still hoping for the best, but expecting a CPU which will be chewed up and spit out by SB-E in every benchmark under the sun. Whenever it is that they will finally get around to releasing it.
 
Abwx said:
35c3a304-0a44-4065-ad6e-ef89c646fc2d.jpg


http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/Hardwa...seurs-bulldozer-sujet_856847_555.htm#t8029265
Click to expand...
Quite odd, because the prices of Opteon 6176 SE on the same site is higher at $1750. Something amiss here?😛

piesquared said:
And the last time In Tel tried this was the (abandonware) skulltrail platform. 😉
Click to expand...
At least Skulltrail was available and Intel had no qualms showing off the system (widely demoed, and performed better than Quad FX) . On the other hand, AMD had a "hush hush" launch with the Quad FX platform (even AMD hardly mentions/demonstrate it at all in most public events outside of reviews, there was availability issues and subsequently we all saw how the Quad FX system turned out to be). The Intel dual socket saga continues today with EVGA's SR2.. 😉

sequoia464 said:
So - what is the concensus here? Still Sept. 19 release date??
Click to expand...
No idea yet, until AMD officially announces a date. 🙁
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top