Say what?
Since the topology of a Bulldozer 'module' has been explained to death, just ignore him/her.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD FX-Series "Bulldozer" will ship end of June
- Thread starter octoploid
- Start date
Since the topology of a Bulldozer 'module' has been explained to death, just ignore him/her.
Perhaps BD will have better performance in highly-threaded tasks and SB better in single-threaded. Overall, I suppose in the worst case, BD will perform on par with SB and cost roughly the same. Then choosing between platforms will become mostly a matter of features and personal preference.
I was hoping for something like the days of Athlon XP > P4, though.
I was hoping for something like the days of Athlon XP > P4, though.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,230
I don't care if Bulldozer or whatever its called is better than Intel, I just want to see price drops do to at least being in the same ballpark performance wise.
D
Deleted member 82943
Guest
those were teh good old days but now that the israelies famous for the pentium-m series chips have made their mark on intel I think intel will die than have it's IPC crown shaken. I think the best place and perhaps the more lucrative place is for AMD to make improvements in its server market in situations > 2 sockets.
And the laptop market
And the Price Performance market
And the 8 Core Desktop Market
And the Graphics Market
etc. etc.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,230
And the laptop market
And the Price Performance market
And the 8 Core Desktop Market
And the Graphics Market
etc. etc.
This will never happen
Intel will "just" have to fix all the failchips they sent out to their desktop/laptop markets.
Then have to squeeze out an 8 Core Desktop CPU very very soon.
Drop Prices on all current dual cores and some quad cores.
And OC the holy heck outta that onchip gfx junk I seen on SB. Causing it to explode!
Yeah Intels got this under control, no problamo
hahaThey need to stick with SSD's and rip off high end & low end CPU's IMO. That's how they made their fortune these last 3 or so years.
So? Doesn't stop people from dreaming.
It's happening right now, some people "just" can't accept it
Mostly Intel fanboys on AMD threads It's happening right now, some people "just" can't accept it
Yeah, AMD's on top! Thier 32nm process is so mature. Thier chips blow Intel's out of the water!
Oh wait...
Intel is on thier second generation of 32nm, AMD is going to roll out their first in 6 months.
It's happening right now, some people "just" can't accept it
the only big fanboy i see here is you......and i consider myself quite the fan boy.....so mate, can you just stop trolling? half the shit your saying is nonsense and hard to read......i'm hoping that BD competes with SB
as for the chipset....dude drop it, the argument isnt even valid anymore, replacements are out, the issue was some SATA ports died, affected only the sataports, not the rest of the motherboard, usability was still fine....
But...why so....many of these....?
I consider myself closer to Intel than AMD, yet I was underwhelmed by SB.
Apdravya82
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2008
- Messages
- 142
Cool thing about BD, I can pop it in my mobo and run.
SB I have to buy a whole new platform, like I7 was a new platform.
AMD has my pocket in mind, not their profits by forcing platform upgrades.
SB I have to buy a whole new platform, like I7 was a new platform.
AMD has my pocket in mind, not their profits by forcing platform upgrades.
Yep, I'm just hoping BD is good enough to compete. Even then Intel is still very good at what they do.
Nope, you need to buy an AM3+ board. U mad?
uhh....where have you been? new mobo is needed
La la land.
I think the 900 series will be similar to the 800 series, may have PCI-E 3.0, but I'm not so sure about USB3 support. I also think that the SB 900 chips will only have 6 or fewer SATA2/3 ports.
I'm rather disappointed about having to buy a new motherboard, but at the same time I got my X2 555 for 95 bucks and my motherboard for 10 bucks soo not exactly like I have a deep investment.
Is there any possibility of the 900 series being quad channel? or even triple channel?
Is there any possibility of the 900 series being quad channel? or even triple channel?
Based on the info released so far, it's dual-channel.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,123
No. No possibility of quad or triple channel ram on the desktop side. It also has nothing to do with the chipset or the motherboard, and most likely won't improve performance desktop side anyways. Quad channel is socket C32 and G34 in the server and high end workstation marketplace only.
The confirmation that you won't see an increase in RAM channels has to do with the socket AM3+ itself. Socket AM3+ is backwards compatible with socket AM3 CPU's (it will accept older AM3 cpu's), therefore AM3+ has a similar amount of pins in the socket (approx. 940). The memory controllers are on the cpu's themselves. Therefore any new channels means you would have to add pins to the CPU and the socket.
Wrong.
TheBlueChanell
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 4,658
For the majority of the market they don't have to beat, they have to compete.
For us, even if they have a solid product but still dont take the crown, we will be hearing about the fall of AMD just like pc gaming.
For us, even if they have a solid product but still dont take the crown, we will be hearing about the fall of AMD just like pc gaming.
uhh...actually this has been said before......AM3 CPU's will work in AM3+ mobo's, but AM3+ Cpu's wont work in AM3 Mobos....
I always felt pretty convinced the i7s would beat out the AMDs from triple channel if everything else was the same, is this not true? If its to no benefit why does Intel include it? Furthermore, quad channel has been available for some time now on AMD's server class, so if it is advantageous, why on a new architecture, is it not included? Is it that big of a deal to include it?
one guess is board size....just my own thought though, ATX is pretty darned small to have that many ram slots
SicKlown42012
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,319
Home users don't need that much pure bandwidth so there's no real reason to have it, but servers can use that and more which is why both AMD and Intel have server boards with more than two channels.
For the consume market, AMD has decided to keep double channel, but make a few changes that allow you go get the most of available bandwidth by tweaking the IMC to be more efficient, and officially support higher speed DDR3. This keeps the cost for motherboard makers down, which means a cheaper platform with comparable performance. JF-AMD talked about this before a couple of months ago, I'll try to find the exact post*.
*http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1036695800&postcount=394
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 82943
Guest
Intel will "just" have to fix all the failchips they sent out to their desktop/laptop markets.
Then have to squeeze out an 8 Core Desktop CPU very very soon.
Drop Prices on all current dual cores and some quad cores.
And OC the holy heck outta that onchip gfx junk I seen on SB. Causing it to explode!
Yeah Intels got this under control, no problamo
They need to stick with SSD's and rip off high end & low end CPU's IMO. That's how they made their fortune these last 3 or so years.
wow simply wow. fanboy much? you dont even make sense.
IIRC x58 used triple channel because it was little more than the Intel server-platform gussied up as an "Enthusiast" solution for end users. I remember seeing several articles that showed very little performance improvement from 3-channel memory (apart from some synthetic benches) for consumer applications. Most consumer programs are CPU, GPU, or disk-limited. There are only a few corner cases where memory-bandwidth is the primary performance limitation, and they're mostly scientific in nature. That's why "super-fast-ultra-bling" RAM doesn't show much improvement on desktop machines.
Obviously servers are a completely different ball game and they'll take all the memory bandwidth you can afford to throw at them.
I think it's good that BD isn't trying to introduce a new memory standard and/or more channels. More cost without any real substantive improvements. DDR4 is still apparently years away.
Obviously servers are a completely different ball game and they'll take all the memory bandwidth you can afford to throw at them.
I think it's good that BD isn't trying to introduce a new memory standard and/or more channels. More cost without any real substantive improvements. DDR4 is still apparently years away.
Apdravya82
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2008
- Messages
- 142
Not at all.
Because I didn't have to buy i7 mobo, to buy SB mobo, to buy the next intel platform change.
The mere fact that AMD tries to make backward compatible processors, warrants much prase in this broke asses department.
Wrong. Gigabyte announced a revision of 8xx that will support Bulldozer.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/19856
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/list.aspx?s=42&jid=10&p=2&v=2
GA-880GA-UD3H (rev. 3.1)
GA-870A-USB3 (rev. 3.1)
GA-870-UD3P (rev. 3.1)
GA-870A-UD3 (rev. 3.1)
GA-890GPA-UD3H (rev. 3.1)
GA-890FXA-UD5 (rev. 3.1)
For those asking about 9xx Hypertransport 3.1, UEFI και Turbo Core 2.0
LAiN_OfTheWired
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 825
Nobody said anything about the 8xx series chipsets not supporting bulldozer CPUs, we already know there will be 8xx series AM3+ boards. These will also support AM3 CPUs since the AM3+ boards will be backward-compatible.
What won't happen is you won't see current AM3 boards with compatibility for bulldozer CPUs.
.... it still needs to have an AM3+ socket.... AM3 sockets will not support Bulldozer....
That's_Corporate
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,738
I truly hope the BD chip is impressive. Looks interesting, and I love the innovation that appears to have went into designing it.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,123
Re-read what I typed. I said Socket AM3+ is backwards compatible with AM3 CPU's. I DID NOT say that socket AM3 is compatible with AM3+ CPU's.
Thank you.
Ever since K6&K7, yup.
Are you a Intel fanboy since your grandma saw the Dude your getting a Dell commercial era?
(That's all Dell sold back in the day (at least in their news(paper) ads and whatnot.)
Before Intel got nailed in court for using their illegal marketing tactics. haha
You too? What a crazy world we must live in! We are actually excited for innovation, and not regurgitation?
(for example Intels 775, 1366, 1155, 2011 etc. just pick a socket people jeez)