AMD FX processors released

I sure amd has many fanboys, maybe just maybe sales will be high enough to worry intel, although those fanboys won't touch intel so it shouldn't hurt them as the people were not buying intel anyways.
 
AMD BD is now only on par with i965 and that chip is 3 years old.i7 is generations ahead of BD and what will AMD come up with to equal the i7?Nothing cause LGA 2011 is around the corner and by the time they have something on par out with the LGA 2011 Intel will most probably have another CPU out or working on one.So to AMD:Sorry guys,you have to pull something other than a rabbit out of your hat otherwise you'll always be two steps behind..
 
Archer said:
If the extra cores are soldered/cut off then unless you have a micron telescope, and EPIC soldering skills, there will not be a way.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I have a slight bit out doubt about AMD going through the extra effort to actually fusk up those cheap chips... But hey, who knows?
 
scotty777 said:
Hmmm, I have a slight bit out doubt about AMD going through the extra effort to actually fusk up those cheap chips... But hey, who knows?
Click to expand...

Standard practice is to sever the other cores (that are likely faulty/instable) with lasers. Its what GPU manufacturers do on just about all their chips. A GTX560 is a cutoff 570 which is a cutoff 580 basically. Its called binning. Same thing happens in the CPU world. Each and every (for example) Phenom chip comes from the same wafer. Then it gets binned to decide if it will be sold as a 955, 965, 940 a dual core, a quad core, etc etc. Back then they just "software" disabled the chips. When Thuban rolled around they went back to lasering off the extra cores again (issues with silly OEMs)
 
I think a 560 is its own die if I'm not mistaken. the 470 was a cut down 480 and the 570 is a cut down 580. Look it up on wikipedia. A 560 is a cut down 560Ti.

6950's have only recently become impossible to mod to 6970's, although I'm not sure exactly how.
 
Ancalagon said:
I think a 560 is its own die if I'm not mistaken. the 470 was a cut down 480 and the 570 is a cut down 580. Look it up on wikipedia. A 560 is a cut down 560Ti.

6950's have only recently become impossible to mod to 6970's, although I'm not sure exactly how.
Click to expand...

I oversimplfied the explanation for someone who doesnt know what what. Didnt bother going to check each and every single one of the facts.
 
Sorry! Anyway, yeah its standard practice.

It used to anger me, that they disabled stuff via firmware/software. But it makes sense, it allows them to cover more segments of the market without being too expensive to them. And sometimes it has the unintended effect of allowing us to unlock cheaper parts into more powerful parts!
 
Ancalagon said:
Sorry! Anyway, yeah its standard practice.

It used to anger me, that they disabled stuff via firmware/software. But it makes sense, it allows them to cover more segments of the market without being too expensive to them. And sometimes it has the unintended effect of allowing us to unlock cheaper parts into more powerful parts!
Click to expand...

I'm aware of a oscilloscope range that has two models. The one is 100MHz and the other 50MHz. The difference? The 50MHz model has a capacitor or resistor, I forget which, bridging two pins. It can be easily removed to unlock the improved capabilities. Why do this? Well, it costs a hell of a lot to produce a completely separate model. Also, as you mentioned, it allows them to cover larger portions of the market. They still make profit on the 50MHz model, they just make a hell of a lot more profit on the 100MHz.
 
http://en.ocworkbench.com/tech/asro...ries-and-nvidias-geforce-7025-chipset-series/

Very interesting. ASRock has said that their chipsets back to the old 630A could support Bulldozer. This could make it much more of an attractive option for those of us sitting with am3 boards.

Also....
13182343781D3JFR9LiH_2_3_l.gif


That's 8150 (significantly) beating 2600k at a slower clock speed in BF3 beta :)

Hardware Heaven review using 1866 ram shows 8150 keeping much better pace with Sandy...

corescaling.jpg


A view of the scaling optimisation when different cores are linked together... it gains 30% when non-linked cores are used together, vs traditional multicore chips that share cache evenly.

I wonder if there isn't more potential in these chips?
 
Last edited:
That is odd cerebus it is showing amd beating intel in most gaming tests, yet the the 2 or 3 other reviews i saw with gaming had the 2600k thumping it something disgusting by up to 70 frames at times.

What other reviews have you seen the 8150 do so well because it looks mighty promising but i am not sure how trust worthy that looks considering the other reviews i have seen, by no means am i saying just because it is doing well means the review is rubbish it's just a complete 360 turn.
 
killadoob said:
That is odd cerebus it is showing amd beating intel in most gaming tests, yet the the 2 or 3 other reviews i saw with gaming had the 2600k thumping it something disgusting by up to 70 frames at times.

What other reviews have you seen the 8150 do so well because it looks mighty promising but i am not sure how trust worthy that looks considering the other reviews i have seen, by no means am i saying just because it is doing well means the review is rubbish it's just a complete 360 turn.
Click to expand...

Still early days.. we'll know for sure in a few months how good they really are.
 
killadoob said:
That is odd cerebus it is showing amd beating intel in most gaming tests, yet the the 2 or 3 other reviews i saw with gaming had the 2600k thumping it something disgusting by up to 70 frames at times.
Click to expand...

Well there are some factors here but yes I agree one review on its own isn't at all conclusive.
However a lot of the games they used for review were much older, like Far Cry 2 which has relatively poor core scaling. Bulldozer appears to have single-core performance approximate to or even lower than Phemon2. It's PURELY in very well optimized threaded applications are benchmarked that BD shows victory. It's just the way the architecture was designed.
And secondly, it appears that there may be a ram speed bottleneck at play here which wasn't picked up by other reviewers.
I am still remaining neutral though.

What other reviews have you seen the 8150 do so well because it looks mighty promising but i am not sure how trust worthy that looks considering the other reviews i have seen, by no means am i saying just because it is doing well means the review is rubbish it's just a complete 360 turn.
Click to expand...

None at all....apart from that BF3 link I just showed you. Then I haven't been spending THAAATTTT much time reading :)
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
That is odd cerebus it is showing amd beating intel in most gaming tests, yet the the 2 or 3 other reviews i saw with gaming had the 2600k thumping it something disgusting by up to 70 frames at times.
Click to expand...

It is because those tests at HardOCP aren't benchmarks. What they did was to just play the game and then sommer record fps, and it is quite clear that different things were going in the the various fps recordings, because we see average framerates drop when the Intel CPUs are overclocked. Utterly useless for impartial conparisons.
 
Rudimental said:
It is because those tests at HardOCP aren't benchmarks. What they did was to just play the game and then sommer record fps, and it is quite clear that different things were going in the the various fps recordings, because we see average framerates drop when the Intel CPUs are overclocked. Utterly useless for impartial comparisons.
Click to expand...

LOL thanx, i thought something odd was going on.
 
Rudimental said:
It is because those tests at HardOCP aren't benchmarks. What they did was to just play the game and then sommer record fps, and it is quite clear that different things were going in the the various fps recordings, because we see average framerates drop when the Intel CPUs are overclocked. Utterly useless for impartial conparisons.
Click to expand...

Hardwareheaven, HardOCP and now Rage3D are showing a totally different story from the other mainstream reputable benchmarking sites - e.g. Anand, Toms and etc. Check out the Rage3D's review showing it trading blows here. I just don't think the picture is as clear as it's being made out. Something is going on with the testbench methodology that is producing differing results. I'm just saying maybe wait a bit until initial bios issues get ironed out and see if anything turns up for the better. I might be wasting my time hoping that Bulldozer will pull a turnaround still, but you never know.

Crosshair Formula perhaps at fault?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X