• 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.

upcoming AMD’s Bulldozer FX Launch Lineup revealed

N

nyker96

Diamond Member
amd_fx_zambezi_specs_2011.png


Link for full article:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...lly_Reveals_AMD_s_FX_Launch_Lineup_Specs.html
 
So now we know the Frequencies, so it's just a matter of nailing down the price vs. performance...

Which is pretty much the same place we've been on Bulldozer for like 6 months now?
 
Wonder how tight the binning will be? Will I have good odds of getting an 8100 to or even beyond 8150 clocks?
 
Looks like im going to go Intel next round. No way I'm getting 8 cores when I can get 4 cores that are just as fast.

No game uses 8 weak cores.

Nope.
 
TakeNoPrisoners said:
Looks like im going to go Intel next round. No way I'm getting 8 cores when I can get 4 cores that are just as fast.

No game uses 8 weak cores.

Nope.
Click to expand...

same, i'll either be going with an i5, or the quad core listed here. whichever one performs better at the 200$ price point
 
TakeNoPrisoners said:
Looks like im going to go Intel next round. No way I'm getting 8 cores when I can get 4 cores that are just as fast.

No game uses 8 weak cores.

Nope.
Click to expand...

What.

Napkin math time! Lets say Bulldozer is actually Husky with 8mb of L3 slapped on it. Husky performs around 6% clock for clock than Deneb, so with the L3 I think 10% better ipc is a fair approximation. Bloomfield has around 20% more ipc than Deneb iirc, so if it turbos to 4.2Ghz at 4 cores used, that would make it around equal to a 3.7-3.8ghz Bloomfield. What games do you play that are cpu bottlenecked with a i7 920@3.7Ghz?

And here is the kicker, apps that actually need the cpu power will use all 8 cores. Nifty, huh?
 
Last edited:
Arzachel said:
And here is the kicker, apps that actually need the cpu power will use all 8 cores. Nifty, huh?
Click to expand...

And what if BD has the same IPC as Phenom II (remember you also have 10-20% penalty of module design over 2 full cores) and AMD instead focused on giving us more cores and far better power efficiency? :hmm:

The problem is people keep saying: "Wait for BD! Wait for BD!" Well if it slips into late Q4 2011, then should we also say "Wait for IB, Wait for IB!" ? Yet, IB is expected for March - April 2012. Every month BD is late, the closer we get to IB launching, with even higher clock speeds/overclocking potential, even better power consumption and likely even more aggressive Turbo Boost from the factory.

I am becoming very sceptical of the whole Bulldozer hype considering AMD hasn't released a single benchmark. Also, even if it's faster, it's been 8 months since SB launched. Now it almost has to be faster than SB to justify being late in order to not disappoint "enthusiasts".
 
Last edited:
trollolo said:
correct me if i'm wrong but don't programs need to be specifically written to be multi-threaded?
Click to expand...

Usually cpu-intensive software is written to actually use the resources available. Unless it uses algorithms, that see little to no gain from parallelization, I guess. That would be a case, where SB ipc with less cores would be better than Nehalem ipc with more cores. Unless you run multiple programs at the same time. But gosh, who does a thing like that?
 
Last edited:
Idontcare said:
^ dude's got a point

Just because an app needs 8 cores doesn't mean it will have been programmed to make use of them.
Click to expand...

Run 1 or 2 programs that like to eat up a whole core on a quad core cpu, BAM, you now have the equivalent of a dual core available for use. Run those same programs on an 8 core and you are still left with 6 open for whatever. What is it with all the people that don't see the consolidation opportunities of many cores? Is this the "dual core is plenty for my needs" crowd now re-pitching their battle lines at quad?
 
Arzachel said:
What.

Napkin math time! Lets say Bulldozer is actually Husky with 8mb of L3 slapped on it. Husky performs around 6% clock for clock than Deneb, so with the L3 I think 10% better ipc is a fair approximation. Bloomfield has around 20% more ipc than Deneb iirc, so if it turbos to 4.2Ghz at 4 cores used, that would make it around equal to a 3.7-3.8ghz Bloomfield. What games do you play that are cpu bottlenecked with a i7 920@3.7Ghz?

And here is the kicker, apps that actually need the cpu power will use all 8 cores. Nifty, huh?
Click to expand...

Games at surround view resolution are still bottlenecked at 3.7ghz on my i7 920.
 
Vesku said:
Run 1 or 2 programs that like to eat up a whole core on a quad core cpu, BAM, you now have the equivalent of a dual core available for use. Run those same programs on an 8 core and you are still left with 6 open for whatever. What is it with all the people that don't see the consolidation opportunities of many cores? Is this the "dual core is plenty for my needs" crowd now re-pitching their battle lines at quad?
Click to expand...

What programs are you running at the same time that eat up entire cores? Also how much RAM are they eating to feed these two cores? Just curious. I have found very few things use an entire core up.
 
Bitcoin mining via phoenix needs a dedicated core, half a core to a full core dedicated to browsing-music-internet voice. If I had more than a tri-core I'd keep at least one VM up 24/7. Right now my uses are confined a bit by the core limit (stopped running my second PC due to noise and heat), which has caused the BD delay to really irk me.

It's a near sighted view to not see that there is a lot of potential in computing and people will adapt to the resources available. For example, someone could Transcode/Encode in the background 24/7 on let's say 4 cores and have 4 cores floating on an octo core cpu. I think many forum folks can see my point that the argument that people only need a powerful uni core -> duo core -> is now shifting to quad core. Now if those arguments were couched in terms of purpose and budget it could be an actual discussion, unfortunately they rarely are.
 
Last edited:
looks like they couldn't get the frequencies up where they wanted them at 4.5ghz...that's too bad.
I forecast that these have little to no overclocking headroom past 4.2ghz.
 
digitaldurandal said:
Games at surround view resolution are still bottlenecked at 3.7ghz on my i7 920.
Click to expand...

Higher resolutions are far harder on the gpu than the cpu, so I somewhat doubt that(unless you run triple/quad crossfire/sli). There is a reason, why cpus are benched at low resolutions.
 
Vesku said:
Run 1 or 2 programs that like to eat up a whole core on a quad core cpu, BAM, you now have the equivalent of a dual core available for use. Run those same programs on an 8 core and you are still left with 6 open for whatever. What is it with all the people that don't see the consolidation opportunities of many cores? Is this the "dual core is plenty for my needs" crowd now re-pitching their battle lines at quad?
Click to expand...

I really don't know why you feel the need to quote me to state the above.

I run a program that is single-threaded but CPU bound - Metatrader 4.

It badly needs to be multi-threaded, we users have been begging the writer/publisher to multi-thread it and they have refused.

So we run just run multiple instances. Four instances on a quad, and so on.

But this has nothing to do with the comment I was responding to and which trollolo was responding to which was some misguided notion that if an app needs more cores then it will somehow automagickally be made to use more threads. Its wishful thinking.

I hope you can see that and appreciate the distinction.
 
I quoted you, Idontcare, because I wanted to point out the ability to run multiple instances which hadn't been covered thus far.

To soccerballtux: Yeah, I'm afraid of that. But does that portend a good chance or a poor chance of getting the 8100 to 4.2GHz? Anyone have historical perspective on AMD's launch binning?
 
Idontcare said:
But this has nothing to do with the comment I was responding to and which trollolo was responding to which was some misguided notion that if an app needs more cores then it will somehow automagickally be made to use more threads. Its wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I didn't state the existance of magical threading fairies, just pointed out that cpu-heavy software usually makes use of as many threads as possible. Of course, if you only use a single program that is single threaded, beefier cores make more sense.

English is not my first language, so I'm sorry if my previous comment mislead anyone
 
Arzachel said:
I didn't state the existance of magical threading fairies, just pointed out that cpu-heavy software usually makes use of as many threads as possible. Of course, if you only use a single program that is single threaded, beefier cores make more sense.

English is not my first language, so I'm sorry if my previous comment mislead anyone
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes sense now 🙂 thanks for clarifying :thumbsup: And I agree with your statement here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top