So this X6 thing...

[Nemesis 1]

you can go by amd suggested price, but you should then go by intel's suggested price as well, $299 for i7 930.

x6 is a silent release, so how is it becoming "supper dupper world rocking", i think you are overexaggerating something. bd is what amd wants to release and i think its gonna be pretty sweet.

when did i say that i don't do overclocking? but from op's perspective, i doubt he will buy a new cooler to just overclock. with intel's stock cooler, you'll run into heat issues very fast. the i5 750 that i installed for my friend, at 2.9ghz idle is 35 and with prime, within 10min it shoots up to 62. which I personally think its a high temperature. so sure you can overclock, but you are not gonna get very far without a decent cooler which is something that some ppl may not want to invest.

I did use intels sugjested price I always do. Thats not what I pay . I believe my first post in this thread yesterday. I believe I used new egg . $295 Not sure and not going to flip page to see. Its pretty well documented Intel stock heat sink O/C as high as AMDs . Its also documented that AMD heatsinks are mircle workers as at Idle they can show 17c when the room is at 20c . AMDs is really really good with heat sinks and temp probs . LOL

 

[mbevolution]

i did use intels sugjested price i always do. Thats not what i pay . I believe my first post in this thread yesterday. I believe i used new egg . $295 not sure and not going to flip page to see. Its pretty well documented intel stock heat sink o/c as high as amds . Its also documented that amd heatsinks are mircle workers as at idle they can show 17c when the room is at 20c . Amds is really really good with heat sinks and temp probs . Lol

LOL,

going to sleep now, dreaming about my x6 breaking 8ghz on stock cooler...

 

[Markfw]

I did use intels sugjested price I always do. Thats not what I pay . I believe my first post in this thread yesterday. I believe I used new egg . $295 Not sure and not going to flip page to see. Its pretty well documented Intel stock heat sink O/C as high as AMDs . Its also documented that AMD heatsinks are mircle workers as at Idle they can show 17c when the room is at 20c . AMDs is really really good with heat sinks and temp probs . LOL

I own both a 920, and soon a 1090T. Yes, based on your comments, I can use the stock cooler and get 20c full load@8ghz. Thanks for the vote of confidence !!! I am so glad you are taking this so well, since obviously you are an Intel fanboy.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Mark its no secret That I preferrr Intel and ATI/AMD. But its about belief . Intel in my view has the Cash to keep pushing the boundries much like what I am seeing with light speed ect ect ect . But I admit . That If AMD can do AVX and the the Itanic thing (FMA4) as well as maybe cvt16 add to this 4 memory lanes and do all this on AM3 I will jump ship so fast it make your head spin . Clearly if AMD can do all this on socket AM3 they have the superior human resources.

Heres an earlier story about amd BD BS.

Why would I believe AMD



Graphics cards News
AMD plots 16-core super-CPU for 2009
"Bulldozer" to be "highest performing processor core" ever
By tech.co.uk staff
July 30th 2007 | Tell us what you think [ 0 comments ]


Bulldozer is AMD's first all-new CPU since the K7 Athlon in 1999




<>

AMD is preparing an all-new PC processor with up to 16 execution cores. Due out in the first half of 2009, the new architecture is codenamed Bulldozer. In an official announcement, AMD said Bulldozer will be its first substantially new CPU core since the original Athlon 64 processor of 2003. And it'll be the first ground up architectural redesign since the K7 Athlon of 1999.

In that context, it's likely the Bulldozer architecture will provide the foundations of AMD CPUs for many years to come. In other words, the architecture is rather important. The news is the latest in a flurry of announcements from AMD's PR machine in the past week. AMD has already revealed plans for a second-gen quad-core processor known as Shanghai and demoed its upcoming Phenom quad-core desktop chip running at 3GHz.

Meanwhile, the world is still waiting for Barcelona, AMD's first generation quad-core CPU , to appear. AMD has promised that Barcelona will launch later this August.

Bulldozer is the name, crushing Intel is the game
But what about Bulldozer? The big news is that it will form the basis of AMD's first massively multi-core PC processor with up to 16 execution cores. Bulldozer will also be fully compatible with AMD's so-called M-SPACE modular CPU design.

Along with traditional PC processors, therefore, expect to see AMD Fusion CPUs powered by Bulldozer cores but also offering a range of specialised processing units. Think graphics processing cores and high-definition video decoding engines and you'll get an idea of the sort of additional functionality Bulldozer-based Fusion processors will deliver.

As for the main execution cores themselves, they retain the same basic out-of-order superscalar design as AMD's existing PC processors. However, Bulldozer will utilise a deeper instruction pipeline. That's a measure traditionally introduced to allow higher clockspeeds. However, deeper pipelines typically also reduce clock-for-clock performance.

Bulldozer also receives a range of new instructions designed to accelerate media processing and performance in high performance computer clusters. With as many as 16 cores humming away, keeping Barcelona fed with data will obviously be a tough task. In response, AMD says the chip will benefit from "highly scalable memory and I/O performance".

Specifically, that means a new version of AMD's Direct Connect technology along with four HyperTransport 3.0 links per processor. Support for ultra fast DDR3 memory as well as AMD's G3MX memory extender technology will further boost the data and bandwidth available to Bulldozer. AMD's G3MX technology is designed to allow increased system memory without resorting to Intel 's power-hungry FBDIMM approach.

How fast is she, mister?
It all sounds pretty impressive on paper. But how fast will this 16-core chip be in practice? Well, according to AMD, Bulldozer is designed to be nothing less than "the highest performing single and multi-threaded compute core in history".

If AMD is to be believed, Bulldozer will improve upon every metric of CPU performance. From performance per watt to outright multi-threaded performance and old school single-threaded oomph, it's promised Bulldozer will be the new king.

Of course, by 2009 Intel will be shipping some fairly exotic kit of its own. A major revision of Intel's Core architecture, complete with an integrated memory controller and HyperTransport-bashing Common Serial Interface, is pencilled in for 2008 with a further revised variant in 2009.

What's more, with that longer instruction pipeline in mind, it will be interesting to see how Bulldozer pulls off improved single-threaded performance. Rumours are currently circulating that Bulldozer may be capable of thread-fusing or using multiple cores to compute a single thread. Thread fusing is one of the holy grails of PC processing. If Bulldozer is indeed capable of such a feat, the future could be very bright indeed for AMD.


Below is the closer trueth . But What I see happening is AMD BD BS arrives around the same time as intels 22nm SB shrink in 2012

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090305165448_AMD_Delays_Bulldozer_Processors_to_2011.html

 

[frostedflakes]

Really . So its cool to be cool . Really . Man Alot of people bought AMD stock I see. Its cool to oversell a product and say its = Intel cpus . When A 6 core AMD is getting its ass handed to it by = clocked Intel 4 core cpus . Funny thing here is so many that threw away their intels to buy AMD . Makes sense in this forum tho. IDC SB gets a new socket which is fine . Not alot of people buy a new feature packed cpu than use an old motherboard that doesn't take advantage of Cpus new features.

Its amazing also that so many believe that BD will use the same socket . If thats true BD has Zero chance of beating Intel . Whys that? BD is suppose to bring AVX and FMC and as I understand it 3or 4 channel memory controllers. NOw if all this is true NO chance in hell AMD will use same socket on BD. IF they can do this and do everthing they say with BD. I will be the first inline to say AMD has better tech than Intel . But like the PH l hype befor its release I lol at what AMD told people 50&#37; faster than Conroe LOL.

In any event If you buy a new cpu without a matching M/B for it . Your just one of many who will come to forums seeking help.

I really think the 2 core sandy is all I will ever want . EXCEPT the 2011 socket for 6x SB sounds really good. I really like this lightspeed thing intel has going . its fantastic . I hope it makes it on to socket 2011. I personally will never pay for one but that doesn't mean much. Any one who thinks light speed is not a big deal really hasn't a clue.

I have an old 55 oldsmobile thats in great condition I just bought in New Mexico. I plan on putting a Crate corvette engine in it . Will it be COOL . Only if you like old cars , Will it be fast . Not really . Is it costing alot of money ? Yes . Is it worth it . Not really but Its a car I like and the orginal motor runs just fine . But I won't use that motor even tho I cheapen the car by installing the chevy motor . Its a simple deal . I will overhaul the orginal motor and install it if I or children decide to sell it. Taste is a matter for the individual .

SO if I still around in 2011 and BD has everthing AMD says it will. IF it comes on present socket I will become an AMD fanboy. IF not I will blast them to hell with all the lies of the past 4 years.

I don't see why some people are making such a big deal about AMD's 6 cores vs Intel's 4. Obviously AMD is less efficient per clock and core, but as long as they can make a competitive product that is reasonably priced and stays within thermal and power envelopes, who cares how many cores it has? It's kind of like saying that the 4850 is a bad card because it takes ATI 1440 stream processors to do what nVidia does with only 480 stream processors. They're two different architectures and not really comparable like that. What matters is how they actually perform. Per core performance matters for single/lightly threaded tasks, but for highly threaded stuff the new X6 chips look pretty good.

Also, AMD roadmap slides suggest that the early Bulldozer chips will in fact be on AM3.

 

[adlep]

Bottom line is this:
At present AMD has an upper hand in a prince/performance department and to me that is the most important point.
Not to mention the fact that according to the road map they will continue supporting socket AM3...

 

[Dadofamunky]

Anywho this X6 chip has me geeked because the price is quite nice and the clockspeeds/wattage is just amazing process engineering combined with amazing design engineering. Not that Intel doesn't have that going for them too but they didn't get there on the budget AMD has and I got to give props (and open my wallet) for such an engineering accomplishment.

That's pretty much my attitude as well. I'd rather get an SSD, as my current rig is plenty for what I'm doing right now, but if all goes well for a few more months I might not be able to resist the urge...

I am angry about the 6 core hype AMD is recieving . As you yourself said

Whatever. Why the heck would you care? Everyone's entitled to their views on this. People want competition. No matter what you say, AMD's trying to provide it. They deserve the hype. Such as it is.

 

[386DX]

What is the 750's stock speed ? I liked the "best OC for each chip" that someone did. In this case, a 4 ghz OC of both with benchmarks.

But the 1055 did win most benchmarks.

The 1055 certainly didn't win most benchmarks (some of the benchmarks are timed so smaller bar is better). The stock speed for the i5 750 is 2.66 GHz, the 1055T is 2.8GHz.

Wins for i5 750:
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Retouch Artist
DivX 6.8.5 Encode
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64
3dsmaxr9 (CPU Test, Radiosity, Throne Shadowmap, Underwater, UnderwaterEscape)
Cinebench R10 (single threaded)
*Blender 2.48a
Sony Vegas Pro 8 Blu-ray disc creation
Fallout 3
Left 4 Dead
Far Cry 2
Crysis Warhead
*x264 HD Benchmark (1st pass)
7-zip (Real World)
Microsoft Excel 2007 SP1
Sonar 8 Multi-track export
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Dragon Age Origins
Dawn of War II
World of Warcraft

Wins for 1055T:
x264 Encode (1st pass, 2nd pass)
3dsmaxr9 (CBall S2, Single Pipe 2, SpaceFlyby)
Cinebech R10 (multi threaded)
POV-RAY 3.7 SMP
Par Multi-threaded
Microsoft Excel 2007 Monte Carlo
*Sorenson Squeeze Pro 5
*WinRAR 3.8
x264 HD Benchmark (2nd pass)
7-zip (Benchmark)

* can be considered a draw the scores are within 2% of each other

 

[richierich1212]

What's the stock uncore speed on the 750?

 

[Nox51]

We take a moment from the perenial Intel/Amd bickering to welcome back IDC into our fold.

 

[3DVagabond]

OP,
Since you upgrade so often (8 years ) I'd advise the Thuban on a moderately priced 890 mobo as the setup with the longest legs for the least investment.

 

[Nemesis 1]

That's pretty much my attitude as well. I'd rather get an SSD, as my current rig is plenty for what I'm doing right now, but if all goes well for a few more months I might not be able to resist the urge...



Whatever. Why the heck would you care? Everyone's entitled to their views on this. People want competition. No matter what you say, AMD's trying to provide it. They deserve the hype. Such as it is.

I don't care about what people say as long as its true. I have read very little trueth about AMD6x other than AMD is selling them at a loss. But so many are saying AMD has caught up to intel which is a flat out LIE. Ya want the trueth can you handle the trueth because you can check it out for yourselves. How many CPUs did AMD sell to make a profit in 05 06 befor Conroe. I will bet whatever you want AMD sells more cpus today with hugh cost cutting now in place Yet they can't make a profit and they have no Fabs. to blame it on . You can always say it was ATI . But the problem is much deeper . Look at every qt AMD has had since the beginning . ALL the money keeping AMD floating is not visiable . Do the reported gains and losses from day 1 to the present . Than maybe You might see what I see . I believe IBM is involved but they are the best of the lowlife bloodsuckers hard to nail the snake down . The worse thing to happen to the tech industry was the loss of Dec. It was also the biggest insider trading scheme that has ever occurred yet NO one said a word. In the year befor dec was gone it overtook big blue in market cap. The investors were being herded in at record price levels . and the brokers and friends sold out and did shorts at exactly the same time . I would love to see an investigation on that event. Befor this last crash I planly stated the crooks were running the show the brokers the big houses. Ya all LOL at me . Now I am the one lol. and it is the last laugh period.

 

[Kuzi]

:thumbsup: awesome, thanks for the link to the AMD roadmap too.

Welcome back IDC!!! Hope all is well bro.

 

[richierich1212]

Who's saying AMD has caught up to Intel? The X6s are an alternative to the i7 920/930/860, no more, no less.

 

[Idontcare]

The forum just got a LOT more active with IDC back!

We take a moment from the perenial Intel/Amd bickering to welcome back IDC into our fold.

Welcome back IDC!!! Hope all is well bro.

Thanks guys, its good to be back, I think :hmm:

This thread kinda exploded and all I was interested in was finding out if Bulldozer would be a potential upgrade path from a modern thuban desktop. (answer: yes)

I understand Intel's rationale in making the business decision to obsolete socket/mobo every 12 months, they are most definitely a for profit business entity so really no mystery there but that doesn't mean their platform strategy is the best thing for my needs and my wallet.

I'm not overly concerned with the minutia of benchmarking details in regards to whether X6 beats i5 or if it is $15 over-priced, etc. My concern really is just "can I avoid paying an annual platform upgrade fee in the form of new mobo/socket" because that fee is substantial relative to the CPU cost alone.

I'll pay an extra $15-$30 for what some may deem an over-priced (for the performance) CPU if it means choosing a platform that saves me $200 in upgrade costs come 2011 or 2012.

 

[mv2devnull]

This thread kinda exploded and all I was interested in was finding out if Bulldozer would be a potential upgrade path from a modern thuban desktop. (answer: yes)

To save an another penny ... will AMD be likely drop DDR2 from IMC in Bulldozer? The roadmap linked on the irst page of this thread says only "DDR3" in the BD box, but that is what it says in the Thuban box as well, and current Thubans do support DDR2.

You see, one could stick to AM3-DDR2 and old CPU (if one has such setup) until Bulldozer, or one could get Thuban now and later is always later.

 

[veri745]

To save an another penny ... will AMD be likely drop DDR2 from IMC in Bulldozer? The roadmap linked on the irst page of this thread says only "DDR3" in the BD box, but that is what it says in the Thuban box as well, and current Thubans do support DDR2.

You see, one could stick to AM3-DDR2 and old CPU (if one has such setup) until Bulldozer, or one could get Thuban now and later is always later.

Short answer... no.

Longer answer... I've only heard of the 890 boards potentially supporting BD, and those are AM3 only.
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16372/35/
*edit* my second link was some obscure forum post, I'll try to find another.

 

[yh125d]

To save an another penny ... will AMD be likely drop DDR2 from IMC in Bulldozer? The roadmap linked on the irst page of this thread says only "DDR3" in the BD box, but that is what it says in the Thuban box as well, and current Thubans do support DDR2.

You see, one could stick to AM3-DDR2 and old CPU (if one has such setup) until Bulldozer, or one could get Thuban now and later is always later.

That seems most likely. While AMD is saying initial BDs will be compatible with 8xx AM3 boards, that doesn't necessarily mean they're 100% fully compatible. I think no DDR2 compatibility and maybe only operating in dual channel. Also, you won't be able to use the IGP

/speculation

 

[frostedflakes]

To save an another penny ... will AMD be likely drop DDR2 from IMC in Bulldozer? The roadmap linked on the irst page of this thread says only "DDR3" in the BD box, but that is what it says in the Thuban box as well, and current Thubans do support DDR2.

You see, one could stick to AM3-DDR2 and old CPU (if one has such setup) until Bulldozer, or one could get Thuban now and later is always later.

This is still uncertain. I'm guessing that AMD will finally drop DDR2 support with Bulldozer, but who knows. Would be really nice if they end up including a DDR2 controller, because that would give AM2/AM2+ users a potential upgrade path. I'm not holding my breath, though, I doubt this will happen.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Evil intel and its money lol . They all will slit your childrens throat for $$$$$.

And this is the company you support?

PS. I would much rather have a 1090T @ 4.0Ghz x 6 cores, than an intel 32nm dual-core @ 4.8Ghz x 2 cores. The AMD would smoke it. (And I'm talking about current, released Intel CPUs, I'm not talking about SB. Or else we would have to compare an 8-core BD chip.)

 

[Idontcare]

This is still uncertain. I'm guessing that AMD will finally drop DDR2 support with Bulldozer, but who knows. Would be really nice if they end up including a DDR2 controller, because that would give AM2/AM2+ users a potential upgrade path. I'm not holding my breath, though, I doubt this will happen.

What socket is Bulldozer using in the server world?

And does that socket/platform currently support DDR2?

If the answer is "yes" then you can bet Bulldozer will too since AMD loves to keep their IT/HPC customers on that "cpu swap-out" upgrade path.

I know JFAMD has mentioned it somewhere at some point in time (the Bulldozer server Socket thing)...can't remember when/where though...time to hit google.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I believe it was XS on the JD(JFAMD) server thing. JD(JF) only comments on server parts. It could have been AMDzone as he hangs their also . As do I .

Well if AMD stays with 2 memory lanes . And hopes to pass Intel in performance. BD needs to be 50-60&#37; faster than present to match intel . FMA won't do it. AVX will from some apps. As I understand it Intel has exclusive use of the Vex prefix (Jit compiler that Intel does not have to share with AMD) This amounts to on the fly recompile of old apps that can use the Vex prefix. which is rather useful . As far as I know AMD is using Xoe or something like that.

Heres everthing one needs to know about AVX . There is so much to absorb here I will just give the link what you read is your business but its worth few hours of your life if you hang out in cpu forums

http://software.intel.com/en-us/avx/

If AMd hopes to compete with intel with 8 (16)cores
I just don't see where 2 memory lanes will handle large server loads . Unless AMD is going to surrender the server space to Intel that is. which we all know won't happen . So amd could be planning to seperate sockets . Actually 3 sockets if you count fusion. I find it strange that befor people realized Fusion brought a new socket . People were haling it as the new state of art CPU. But as I read this topic people HERE don't want a NEW stinking M/B with their New CPU so I guess Fusion is a fail befor its even out all because of a stinky new socket . Ironic isn't it. Than AMD is bragging About the Compute power the BD modules. Yet AMD will stay with 2 channel memory . Intel already has 3 channel and are moving to 4 channel on 2011 socket . I pretty sure that in the server market intels 3 channel 1366 has proven it self useful but not so much on the desktop PC. Yet you want me to believe that in server market AMD thinks it can compete SB with 2 memory channels not likely. I see AMD doing exactly the same as intel. 3 seperate sockets with AM3 possiably staying around for desktop that would be AMDs midrange not high end.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I just don't see where 2 memory lanes will handle large server loads . Unless AMD is going to surrender the server space to Intel that is. which we all know won't happen . So amd could be planning to seperate sockets . Actually 3 sockets if you count fusion. I find it strange that befor people realized Fusion brought a new socket . People were haling it as the new state of art CPU. But as I read this topic people HERE don't want a NEW stinking M/B with their New CPU so I guess Fusion is a fail befor its even out all because of a stinky new socket . Ironic isn't it. Than AMD is bragging About the Compute power the BD modules. Yet AMD will stay with 2 channel memory . Intel already has 3 channel and are moving to 4 channel on 2011 socket . I pretty sure that in the server market intels 3 channel 1366 has proven it self useful but not so much on the desktop PC. Yet you want me to believe that in server market AMD thinks it can compete SB with 2 memory channels not likely. I see AMD doing exactly the same as intel. 3 seperate sockets with AM3 possiably staying around for desktop that would be AMDs midrange not high end.

Bulldozer will appear on both AM3 socket, and G34 (server) socket, last I heard. I don't know how many memory channels G34 has, but I think it's four, as two 6-core dice appear linked in the 12-core Magny Cours chip, and each of those dice has two memory channels.
So really, just like HyperTransport's multi-CPU scalability versus Intel's QPI, Intel is finally catching up with AMD, as far as memory channels go with socket 2011.
AMD's architecture has been leading Intel's, in the server space, for a number of years. Ever since the Opteron out-distanced itself from Intel's poor P4-based Xeon chips.

Here's a diagram that states that G34 sockets have four memory channels. http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16797
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17005/2
These are servers that you can buy TODAY, you don't have to wait for socket 2011 like with Intel.

PS. I can help but rub it in a little bit, not to mention that the HyperThreading feature of Nehalem-class CPUs is worthless for server workloads.

Edit: You're wrong about one thing, AMD is going to have FOUR sockets, not just three. Two for server (G34, C32), the LLano APU socket, and AMD3. Some say AM3+ is coming out too.

Edit: MC STREAM results - 42GB/sec memory bandwidth. What does Intel score with their triple-channel setup? http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3995220&postcount=54

Edit: Just as I thought, Intel is slower. http://www.advancedclustering.com/company-blog/stream-benchmarking.html

 

[IntelUser2000]

So really, just like HyperTransport's multi-CPU scalability versus Intel's QPI, Intel is finally catching up with AMD, as far as memory channels go with socket 2011.
AMD's architecture has been leading Intel's, in the server space, for a number of years. Ever since the Opteron out-distanced itself from Intel's poor P4-based Xeon chips.

They already support 4 channels on the Xeon 7500. Of course its not a direct competitor.

PS. I can help but rub it in a little bit, not to mention that the HyperThreading feature of Nehalem-class CPUs is worthless for server workloads.

REALLY? http://anandtech.com/show/2774/5

Are you high?

 

[Accord99]

PS. I can help but rub it in a little bit, not to mention that the HyperThreading feature of Nehalem-class CPUs is worthless for server workloads.

Er no. It's probably the single greatest improvement in performance/watt you can get in server workloads and why every server architecture, except for AMD, has it in some form or another.