Rumour: Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II.

Page 52 - 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.

HW2050Plus

Member
Jan 12, 2011
168
0
0
"It is just plain common sensical." It was about time they dropped the name like Phenom II X4 955. The 955 part made sense, the II and X4 monikers are a little excessive.
The full names are a little longer though:
AMD Vision Black FX8000
old namings:
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition

But you are right the "II" "X4" "955" is too much.
Now you have one name ("Vision Black"), one prefix ("FX") and one number ("8000").
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
If the gate delay metric quoted was FO4, then its a process independent metric. Prescott was supposedly at 12.5 FO4 delays at 90nm. Penryn was 18 or something.

The "double-pumped" ALU's were clocked twice as fast as the nominal core frequency, which made that logic ~7 FO4/cycle. :awe:

OK so it wasn't static CMOS, but damn it was fast.
 

Triskain

Member
Sep 7, 2009
63
33
91
Thus a 4GHz Zambezi at 95W is not unlikely.
That is my expectation as well.

nvo from the Semiaccurate Forums, who supposedly has access to insider info concerning BD says:

Well, from what I've heard, target frequency for the default P-state at 95W TDP is 3.0GHz to 3.3GHz, and 3.7GHz to 4.0GHz using TurboCore 2.0 with all cores active.

Source


OK so it wasn't static CMOS, but damn it was fast.

It also had more leakage than a punctured high pressure line.
 

sawtx

Member
Dec 9, 2008
93
0
61
They are simple, but to many numbers. Shouldve kept it like the old FX's just 2 digits. Like FX55.

I like how they are using the first number to designate core count, hopefully the second number would be the generation, and last two for a specific chip designation.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
no need to defend prescott, especially when you guys are on such a roll these days. you don't see amd defending 2900xt do you? ;)

He's not denying it ran hot, he's stating it wasn't transistor power leakage that made it run hot.

Of course it would have been helpful if he completed the statement and say what did make Prescott run hot.
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
I like how they are using the first number to designate core count, hopefully the second number would be the generation, and last two for a specific chip designation.

Like FX6150?

I just guessed.
 

drizek

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2005
1,410
0
71
They should come out with an FX 5800 and make it run slower than Conroe, just to piss off nvidia.
 

athloln

Junior Member
Mar 10, 2011
1
0
0
They should come out with an FX 5800 and make it run slower than Conroe, just to piss off nvidia.

blower2.jpg


Mandatory
 

Soleron

Senior member
May 10, 2009
337
0
71
That is my expectation as well.

I would not be surprised if AMD ultimately reaches a retail SKU clocked at 4.5GHz at some point on 32nm, especially if they keep the 140W TDP SKU going at 32nm.

Is the "architecture is capable of 3.5GHz" statement made during ISSCC lowballing it then?
 

jvroig

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,394
1
81
Is the "architecture is capable of 3.5GHz" statement made during ISSCC lowballing it then?
Considering that they already exceed this with their current 45nm parts, and that this new arch is designed for high clock speeds, then yes, this would be a reasonable expectation.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,787
136
They said 3.5GHz+ at ISSCC. So if you want to say something ambiguous, but confident this would be the way to go. You can't figure out what the exact clock speeds will be from this.
 

Ares1214

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
268
0
0
Is the "architecture is capable of 3.5GHz" statement made during ISSCC lowballing it then?


Of course its capable. Even 45nm is. The important part is if it stocks at 3.5 GHz, will it:

1. Scale as well as SB when OC'ing

2. OC as high as SB

3. Maintain reasonable temperatures at these clock speeds

Considering Intel is in it's 2nd 32nm gen, odds are they are getting better batches than AMD will be. Seeing the fantastic results SB is getting with the 3 categories above, im fairly skeptical SB will hit 5 GHz on air. Scaling depends on the arch, and so does temps, but im going to guess 5 GHz will be rather elusive for AMD.
 

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
They should have named the 6 core BD FX2600 just to piss off intel :)

Better yet, FX2601 ():)
:D had me lauffin. +1 karma points for that Castiel.

I vote they go with FX2600 too :)
(mostly because I dont like the FX2000,4000,8000,16,000? theme)

sounds like to much to have a 16,000 tag.

Wonder if they couldnt just do a FX-2k, FX-4k ect.
Think it sounds better, more memorable too that way.

then they could spell their cores as "Kore" 's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.