Re: AMD Bulldozer Criticism

[octoberasian]

I keep reading a lot of criticism about BD lately being posted here and on other forums. It seems to revolve around two things mostly: Sandy Bridge and IPC.

It's as if everyone is expecting it to match or beat Sandy Bridge processors. And, if it doesn't do that then the processor itself fails and won't be successful against Intel. Others are expecting it to be just below SB. And the rest? Everyone else is expecting it to falter and just match or barely beat Intel's previous generation Socket 1366/1156 Core i7/i5 CPUs.

Very few from what I've read have high hopes for it that it will be both successful and affordable compared to Intel's offerings even if it just matches S1366 Core i7 950/975/990X performance.

So, the question I ask and answer as honestly and realistically about this is:

How do you increase IPC in a processor without making it:

a) complex
b) costly
c) have high TDP?

My best assumption here has to be something what Intel is doing with Ivy Bridge S2011 which is coming out on 28nm process. Unfortunately, I don't see AMD coming anywhere near that anytime soon with 32nm being their next process while Intel is ahead. And, sadly, this is going to give Intel enough reason to price the CPU higher than AMD due to fearing little to no competition from AMD. But, at the same time decreasing TDP yet increasing architecture complexity in the newer Intel CPU.
​

Also, is native 4-core/8-core design better than Intel's native 4-core/6-core with 4 or 6 virtual threads? Native cores versus virtual threads/cores in other words.

It seems the general consensus I'm getting is that a lot of people believe AMD's approach to a native 4-core/8-core design might not be enough to beat Core i7 SB or S1366 Core i7 due to what might be a possible lower IPC per core in Bulldozer. Thus, it comes to the next question.
​

If AMD managed to increase the IPC per core but at the same time made BD more complex, would anyone be willing to buy it if it were to cost more?
​

My thoughts on all this?

Well, I can understand that a lot of the criticism against Bulldozer are justified just by looking at past processors that AMD has released-- Phenom I and Phenom II. While Intel was ten steps ahead, AMD was ten steps behind, figuratively speaking.

However, I wonder if many of the critics realize several things regarding this. AMD does not have the financial support that Intel has nor the R&D size like Intel. GlobalFoundries might help in some way in the future, but I don't seem to think it will help in the present. For example, with 28 nm Ivy Bridge coming out in late 2011/early 2012, GlobalFoundries will only have started 28nm production by 2012 with Fab 8.

I'm assuming that the next CPU coming out of AMD (and possibly their next GPU after Southern Islands) will be entirely 28 nm post-2012. However, Intel will already be ahead of them by the time the first signs of such an AMD CPU is out on the market possibly around 2013 to 2014 at the earliest.

I think, and this is my personal opinion, if Intel hadn't [indirectly bribed] computer makers like Dell with incentives to only to use Intel CPUs, and I think AMD would have had more revenue to research and develop better CPUs that would have performed better than what Phenom I and Phenom II is today. And, I think Intel held them back in the market. Less revenue from sales, less money for R&D, and less R&D, lesser CPUs is my thinking.

I honestly would think that AMD would be in a better position with CPUs on par with Intel's latest and current offerings instead of beating a previous generation Intel CPU if they had more financial backing to commit to making better CPUs.

I think that is where the criticism becomes unjustified because many don't realize or understand that AMD is not Intel. AMD has, as of now, an operating income of $848 million dollars compared to Intel's at $16 billion dollars US.

 [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices"]Advanced Micro Devices - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel[/url]

It's a huge disparity.

It's the equivalent of David versus Goliath, with David having nothing more than stones and sticks to fight back. So what do you do? AMD is fighting where it can fight and that's at affordability. I've stuck by AMD since the Athlon XP days because it's more affordable than what I can get with an Intel CPU. For $350 after shipping and tax, I can get 8 GB of RAM, a board, and an AMD CPU. For $315, I can get an Intel Core i7 2600K with no motherboard and no RAM. I'm looking at $450 to $500 by adding RAM and a board.

It may not perform closely to a 2600K but at least it works and it means I spent much less, and that's where AMD Bulldozer will excel in.

For example, a top-end, 8-core FX-8130P at $320 is considerably cheaper than a 6-core/12-thread Core i7 990X. The only problem is that the pricing is on par with a Core i7 2600K which may lead to the thinking that the top-end AMD 8-core CPU may not perform as well as the 2600K and be considerably worthless from at that price point. Thus, that's where the fear and worry about AMD's next CPU begins given the performance of past CPUs from AMD.

Point of all this is: Let's at least give AMD the benefit of a doubt here and let the benchmarks of Bulldozer when it's released decide whether AMD has succeeded or not.

 

[Nightbird]

If you read a post that could have been written by a 4 year old, just assume it is a 4 year old posting. Then you don't feel the need to reply. Trust me when I say that everyone who can understand what you've posted already knows and agrees with its contents.

 

[next-Jin]

AMD is only going to focus on cheap mainstream parts for awhile. They can't compete and they are doing the right thing here imo. Cheap affordable CPU's and Video Cards that compare well to Intel/nVidia with price performance.

What people are complaining about is that it probably will not even compete with Sandy Bridge (2100-2600k) and those CPU's are Intel's mainstream. They are their value priced CPUs which imo is bad. Intel will be releasing their E series a few months afterwards putting AMD right back in the same position they are in now.

In my opinion at least AMD is releasing something new that maybe they can build off of. I do not think they will be able to compete with SB but even if they do it's too little too late. Everyone already has SB unless they were already on AMD waiting for Bulldozer but then they are going to be looking back asking themselves "Self, I could have had this performance 6 months ago".

 

[bigddybn]

Performance per dollar is all that counts. At the end of the day the HOW doesn't matter. AMD is very much competing with Sandy Bridge here. To bring the 990x into the conversation is just a bit silly.

I don't care if AMD needs 10Ghz and 15 cores to do it. If my 200 bucks buys me faster silicon from AMD than Intel I'm buying AMD. If not, well then....

The delays and lack of promotional "leaks" makes me think AMD has something to hide or at least spin.

 

[LightningCrash]

I want to support the underdog, just to foster competition.

But really if Intel pwns the consumer segment I will probably end up with an Intel again (still on C2D right now.)
I don't have a lot of money so I can't just blow it on under-performing crap.

 

[SonicTron]

October, you're missing the part where the only reason Intel isn't faceraping on the cost is because they have chosen not to. They only allow AMD to exist in a state that is not total failure, but also not a threat, in order to ward off monopoly allegations. Intel's SB offerings are reaping massive profits and selling at relatively stratospheric profit margins; this is the problem.

 

[JF-AMD]

AMD is only going to focus on cheap mainstream parts for awhile. They can't compete and they are doing the right thing here imo.

Hmmmm, less than 5% of the market buys the ultra expensive top bin parts. Perhaps AMD is well positioned to 95% of the market. Is that a bad thing?

October, you're missing the part where the only reason Intel isn't faceraping on the cost is because they have chosen not to. They only allow AMD to exist in a state that is not total failure, but also not a threat, in order to ward off monopoly allegations. Intel's SB offerings are reaping massive profits and selling at relatively stratospheric profit margins; this is the problem.

That is completely untrue.

 

[next-Jin]

Hmmmm, less than 5% of the market buys the ultra expensive top bin parts. Perhaps AMD is well positioned to 95% of the market. Is that a bad thing?

Did you not read what you quoted? I said that you guys were doing the right thing focusing on the mainstream. The problem is that once BD is released Intel can quickly and throughly put AMD back in it's budget minded space assuming of course BD competes with Sandy Bridge.

Like I previously mentioned I hope you guys have pulled off a miracle because I want competition, but I am realistic. If AMD can not even compete with Sandy Bridge CPU's which are Intel's budget and mainstream line then again you guys are going to be fighting over table scraps.

Assuming of course we are talking about the consumer segment. If you guys bring the pain with Bulldozer and it's successor is an improvement on whatever Intel has on the market for my next build then I'll go AMD. I've had several AMD builds in the past but that was a long while ago.

 

[griff30]

All will be laid to rest in 11 days.
We will have an idea what to expect from AMD and whether or not we are going to wait for BD or Quad Channel CPUs from Intel...

 

[cyclone3d]

I'm not too concerned with single threaded performance from the BD chips as most things I run are multithreaded.

What I want to know is the multithreaded performance vs Intel's hyperthreading.

On paper it looks like it will be very good.

I also know somebody who has replaced some of his LGA 1366 i7 setups with AMD Phenom II x6 setups and is getting roughly 50% more performance from the AMD setups in what he is specifically using them for.

If the BD products have a greater IPC AND higher clocks than the Phenom II stuff.. highly unlikely that they won't, then I am probably going to be going AMD this next round.

The only real "concern" I have is what the RAM throughput will be as I currently get right at 32GB/s on the rig in my sig.

 

[Dan_D]

Performance per dollar is all that counts.

Wrong. Some of us do not care about that. Some of us care only about absolute performance. I'd agree that we are in the minority, but statements like this pointing to us all caring about the same things are simply wrong.

 

[Nightbird]

So called budget processors makes 95% of the revenue for Intel. AMD's strategy is to get 100% of their revenue from budget processors, ignoring the 5% from enthusiasts who will pay Intel's hefty Extreme series premiums. That being said, the i7 2600k is a superb "budget" processor, if the best Bulldozer ends up trading blows with it (well, winning in Folding is all I care about anyways), I'm satisfied. If it can't match the 2600K at all, then it'll end up being 10, 20, 30% cheaper, but AMD survives to fight another day. The only result that I'd be seriously concerned with is if it is slower on 8 threaded tasks than the 2600k at the same clock (8 versus 4 cores).

 

[Dan_D]

October, you're missing the part where the only reason Intel isn't faceraping on the cost is because they have chosen not to. They only allow AMD to exist in a state that is not total failure, but also not a threat, in order to ward off monopoly allegations. Intel's SB offerings are reaping massive profits and selling at relatively stratospheric profit margins; this is the problem.

Where do people get crap like this? Intel isn't "face raping" on their prices because the market won't allow them to do so. With consumers demanding cheaper and cheaper computing solutions all the time Intel is unable to charge $300+ for all their processors. That's what market segmenting is all about. Intel would have sub-$150 CPUs whether AMD existed or not. Because of AMD's existence we see Intel more aggressively position some of their processors into lower price points than they might otherwise have done. We also see shorter development cycles as a result of the competition.

Not to be insulting to AMD, but I think people are under the wrong impression that AMD is some kind of good guy and Intel is some how evil. I don't know why people act like AMD is some kind of white knight, or shining example of virtue championing cheaper CPUs for all. They aren't. These are all companies which exist to sell product and make money. Profits are the driving force behind most companies existence and product improvement, R&D etc. are simply how they identify needs of their customer base and create products that will continue to appeal to their needs and desires. It is also how they keep from being steamrolled by their competition. AMD prices their CPUs according to their relative performance as compared to Intel's parts. When the FX series was the fastest CPU around they charged $1,000 for them. They've currently got nothing in the desktop market that can compete with Intel's $500-$1,000 price range. As a result there are no AMD processors that cost that much. I guarantee they would if they could.

 

[daglesj]

Wrong. Some of us do not care about that. Some of us care only about absolute performance. I'd agree that we are in the minority, but statements like this pointing to us all caring about the same things are simply wrong.

Yes but you/me are a minority as you say. And we all know minorities dont count.

Intel are forging ahead with ever more powerful CPUs and more and more users are just choosing to stay behind because they dont need them.

Intel needs to look hard at what Joe Average user actually needs and reign things back for a greater part of their product line (not all).

AMD have looked at Joe Average and are concentrating on him. Intel just appear to listen to folks on Hardware forums and want to appease the benchmark freaks. To most they have lost the plot.

In effect Intels products are less and less appealing due to cost to a growing chunk of the PC world. I can build an budget AMD box with a 64GB SSD in it. If I go the cheapest Intel route I have to drop the SSD, offer a soso processor and worst of all a motherboard that lacks a lot of the more modern features the AMD based one will have (USB3.0/e-SATA/HDMI etc.).

All AMD needs to do is promote their products. I even see Acer are now advertising products on UK TV. If they can do it so can AMD.

Then ARM wades in...........

 

[flippin_waffles]

Where do people get crap like this? Intel isn't "face raping" on their prices because the market won't allow them to do so. With consumers demanding cheaper and cheaper computing solutions all the time Intel is unable to charge $300+ for all their processors. That's what market segmenting is all about. Intel would have sub-$150 CPUs whether AMD existed or not. Because of AMD's existence we see Intel more aggressively position some of their processors into lower price points than they might otherwise have done. We also see shorter development cycles as a result of the competition.

Not to be insulting to AMD, but I think people are under the wrong impression that AMD is some kind of good guy and Intel is some how evil. I don't know why people act like AMD is some kind of white knight, or shining example of virtue championing cheaper CPUs for all. They aren't. These are all companies which exist to sell product and make money. Profits are the driving force behind most companies existence and product improvement, R&D etc. are simply how they identify needs of their customer base and create products that will continue to appeal to their needs and desires. It is also how they keep from being steamrolled by their competition. AMD prices their CPUs according to their relative performance as compared to Intel's parts. When the FX series was the fastest CPU around they charged $1,000 for them. They've currently got nothing in the desktop market that can compete with Intel's $500-$1,000 price range. As a result there are no AMD processors that cost that much. I guarantee they would if they could.

History, I suppose. To ignore IntEl's past abuse of the market and consumers, and then have websites and forum posters try to sweep it under the rug and pretend IntEl's historic actions doesn't reflect their culture as a company, brings those websites and forum posters credibility seriously in to question. IMO

As for the $1000 FX CPU's, you may recall they were still cheaper than the lower performing and much less desirable CPU's from the competition

 

[flippin_waffles]

Wrong. Some of us do not care about that. Some of us care only about absolute performance. I'd agree that we are in the minority, but statements like this pointing to us all caring about the same things are simply wrong.

Interesting. I'll have to see if I can dig up your opinion on i3 and i5 since as you say, you only care about absolute performance.

 

[kirtar]

Interesting. I'll have to see if I can dig up your opinion on i3 and i5 since as you say, you only care about absolute performance.

There's a difference between his opinion as an editor (or when giving advice to others) and his opinion for his personal hardware. I might prefer absolute performance for my personal machine but I sure as hell won't recommend that to my parents. FWIW all I care about is what is best in the price bracket that I'm looking at. I suppose you could say that of everyone as long as you realize some people's price bracket is "unlimited"

 

[JMccovery]

There's a difference between his opinion as an editor (or when giving advice to others) and his opinion for his personal hardware. I might prefer absolute performance for my personal machine but I sure as hell won't recommend that to my parents. FWIW all I care about is what is best in the price bracket that I'm looking at. I suppose you could say that of everyone as long as you realize some people's price bracket is "unlimited"

But, doesn't that still boil down to 'performance per dollar'? 'Performance per dollar' doesn't mean getting the best performing hardware for the absolute lowest price, but getting the best performance hardware that will fit inside your budget.

If both the 990X and 2600K were the same price, which would people buy?

 

[LightningCrash]

If both the 990X and 2600K were the same price, which would people buy?

Which one uses less power?

 

[JMccovery]

Which one uses less power?

Ok... If they were the same price, used the same power,(throw QuickSync out the window) and the main difference was in the respective platforms they plug into (people are making this hard).

 

[Topweasel]

Which one uses less power?

Is really that what its come down to. Do people really buy into those marketing ploys. Who gives a damn which uses less power? If the 990X performed exactly the same as the 2600k and used less power, you would still spend the extra $700?

Its not a Laptop CPU, its not an HTPC CPU, its not a blade or server farm CPU.

 

[drescherjm]

Who gives a damn which uses less power?

I certainly care about which one uses less power. If the 2600K and 990X were the same price I would still purchase the 2600K because it uses less power and overclocks better. Although I would have to look very closely at benchmarks since I could use the extra cores.

if the 990X performed exactly the same as the 2600k and used less power, you would still spend the extra $700?

No

 

[kirtar]

But, doesn't that still boil down to 'performance per dollar'? 'Performance per dollar' doesn't mean getting the best performing hardware for the absolute lowest price, but getting the best performance hardware that will fit inside your budget.

If both the 990X and 2600K were the same price, which would people buy?

You certainly have a weird definition of performance per dollar. Yes, how I said it it's still kind of using a "budget" although it may as well not (since it's "infinite"). Also how you have it, performance per dollar is a variable between people and their budgets rather than just comparing a processor's performance to its price.

 

[Michaelius]

Point of all this is: Let's at least give AMD the benefit of a doubt here and let the benchmarks of Bulldozer when it's released decide whether AMD has succeeded or not.

I gave them benefit of doubt with X6.
Never again I'll make such a mistake. I used to like AMD due to good memories of AXP and Barton but they wasted it.
Altrough I guess $200 was quite cheap price to learn that less good cores is superior to dozens of shitty ones.

 

[Topweasel]

You certainly have a weird definition of performance per dollar. Yes, how I said it it's still kind of using a "budget" although it may as well not (since it's "infinite"). Also how you have it, performance per dollar is a variable between people and their budgets rather than just comparing a processor's performance to its price.

Not really. Specially not this round with both requiring new platforms for the most part. If the two systems are similar and you either get more, or it costs less then its a win.

People don't buy CPU's to wear as necklaces (...well they shouldn't). It has to go into a system.

 

[kirtar]

Not really. Specially not this round with both requiring new platforms for the most part. If the two systems are similar and you either get more, or it costs less then its a win.

People don't buy CPU's to wear as necklaces (...well they shouldn't). It has to go into a system.

It really doesn't make any difference to me whether or not a new platform is required as long as both things are the same (either both new or both not new). The point is that how he said it a 980X is good performance per dollar if your budget is unlimited but in that case a 2600K is relatively poor because while it fits in your budget, it's not the best. I'm saying that performance per dollar isn't so subjective/variable that what is good performance per dollar for one person is terrible for another person. A CPU/platform has a price and a performance. These don't change whether your budget is $500 or $5000.

 

[JMccovery]

You certainly have a weird definition of performance per dollar. Yes, how I said it it's still kind of using a "budget" although it may as well not (since it's "infinite"). Also how you have it, performance per dollar is a variable between people and their budgets rather than just comparing a processor's performance to its price.

I'm not talking in the objective sense, I'm talking subjective, mainly the reason why people will buy a 990X over a 2600K, because they perceive that the performance of the 990X/X58 platform is a better value to them than the 2600K/Z68 platform. Basically, that the increased performance is worth the extra money.

Look at the difference between the 580 and 6970. Is the higher performance of the 580 worth the extra money? If yes, then the performance per dollar ratio of the 580 is better than the ratio of the 6970. If no, the the opposite is true. Remember, I am talking in the subjective sense.

Anyways, we are kind of venturing off of the subject.

I'm actually more interested in Zambezi's successor, Komodo, and whether it will use AM3+, FM1/2 or a consumer version of the C2012/2013 (3ch DDR3-1600/1866, 16-32 integrated PCI-E lanes) socket that Sepang (Opteron 6300) will fit into.

 

[daglesj]

I gave them benefit of doubt with X6.
Never again I'll make such a mistake. I used to like AMD due to good memories of AXP and Barton but they wasted it.
Altrough I guess $200 was quite cheap price to learn that less good cores is superior to dozens of shitty ones.

You sound like the CEO of AMD slept with your mum but never phoned back.

Its only CPUs. Nothing personal.

 

[kirtar]

I'm actually more interested in Zambezi's successor, Komodo, and whether it will use AM3+, FM1/2 or a consumer version of the C2012/2013 (3ch DDR3-1600/1866, 16-32 integrated PCI-E lanes) socket that Sepang (Opteron 6300) will fit into.

I'm going to venture a guess and say it probably won't be on FM1/2 (assuming FM2 is for Trinity) although I suppose it's possible because Trinity will share the CPU architecture. My guess is that FM1/2 is going to be used for APUs only.

 

[MacLeod]

Hmmmm, less than 5% of the market buys the ultra expensive top bin parts. Perhaps AMD is well positioned to 95% of the market. Is that a bad thing?

Perhaps but Intel caters to the performance/enthusiast crowd and its worked out pretty well for them.

I just don't see how marketing to the people that don't give a crap, is a good thing. Even the people that don't care are still likely to browse a website or two before plunking down $1000 for a computer and if "Intel is performance king" is all they find, chances are thats what they're gonna go after even in the low priced stuff. Being cheapest isn't the best marketing strategy IMO.

 

[LightningCrash]

Is really that what its come down to. Do people really buy into those marketing ploys. Who gives a damn which uses less power? If the 990X performed exactly the same as the 2600k and used less power, you would still spend the extra $700?

Its not a Laptop CPU, its not an HTPC CPU, its not a blade or server farm CPU.

Why do you want to change the scenario? What I responded to was performance equal, price equal. Now you say performance equal, $700 difference. Completely different question.

 

[daglesj]

Being cheapest isn't the best marketing strategy IMO.

Well when folks have far less money in their pockets like a lot right now do, it doesnt hurt.

 

[krameriffic]

AMD is only going to focus on cheap mainstream parts for awhile. They can't compete and they are doing the right thing here imo. Cheap affordable CPU's and Video Cards that compare well to Intel/nVidia with price performance.

See, I don't buy this. They are actually competing quite well with NV, both on the value front and on the sheer performance front. The marketshare favors NV, but the benchmarks don't really put a clear winner at any particular pricepoint. The only place AMD doesn't compete is against the 580 because they don't have a comparably powerful single GPU. As far as flagship dual GPU cards, the 6990 is probably better than the 590 due to superior X-fire scaling in most games.

Perhaps they just have a lot of incompetent engineers in the CPU division compared to Intel while all the people they brought in from ATI actually know what they're doing?

 

[Topweasel]

Why do you want to change the scenario? What I responded to was performance equal, price equal. Now you say performance equal, $700 difference. Completely different question.

Miss read where he was coming from and the original question. I just get bothered when people are debating power usage numbers on a desktop performance CPU, because honestly most shouldn't and wouldn't care. If they did you wouldn't see these 200w mid range video cards and these 450w 2 GPU behemoths.

Nobody is realistically trying to put a 2006k or a 990x in a cabinet or laptop.

 

[LightningCrash]

Miss read where he was coming from and the original question. I just get bothered when people are debating power usage numbers on a desktop performance CPU, because honestly most shouldn't and wouldn't care. If they did you wouldn't see these 200w mid range video cards and these 450w 2 GPU behemoths.

Nobody is realistically trying to put a 2006k or a 990x in a cabinet or laptop.

Power consumption is a consideration of mine because I put my shit on a UPS and I want more than 10 seconds of battery life.

 

[Monkey God]

Its all fanboy marketing drama-generating bullshit. Until a few legitimate review sites like this one can actually test and publish without NDA, its a waste of time to even talk about it. IT DOESN'T EXIST yet and fighting over imaginary-ware doesn't make sense.

 

[Topweasel]

Power consumption is a consideration of mine because I put my shit on a UPS and I want more than 10 seconds of battery life.

You really can't save a whole bunch more on at max 30w. That's at a so stressed out mode that its about to throttle down. For every day tasks it might only be 10-15 watts, and nearly no difference on idle. If your really worried about that, make sure you get a 80-plus gold, and look at your video cards solution. Both of those are going to affect power usage by a lot more.

 

[octoberasian]

Here's a question that I'd like to know since I see the letters IPC tossed around a lot in these discussions:

How would AMD improve IPC (per core) to perform on par or better than an Intel Core i7 2000-series CPU? What would it take basically-- architecture re-design? better R&D funding?

And, if it costs more, would anyone be willing to pay more for it?

 

[Topweasel]

Here's a question that I'd like to know since I see the letters IPC tossed around a lot in these discussions:

How would AMD improve IPC (per core) to perform on par or better than an Intel Core i7 2000-series CPU? What would it take basically-- architecture re-design? better R&D funding?

And, if it costs more, would anyone be willing to pay more for it?

Some tweaking. What has people nervous about BD, is that it doesn't look as wide as even a Phenom II. But we know of the tricks they plan on doing to keep IPC up. So in sense of real world performance if its behind (and we aren't certain of that) then only a few tweaks will be needed. I fully expect it to get thoroughly trashed on Synthetic benchmarks though.

Remembered reading a real world analysis on the computational value of a cpu in real world tests and synthetic ones. In the Synthetic ones it always got up to near max IPC. But in the real world even SB only got a third of its value and rarely was an app written well enough to get more then even 1 IPC out of it.

 

[LightningCrash]

You really can't save a whole bunch more on at max 30w. That's at a so stressed out mode that its about to throttle down. For every day tasks it might only be 10-15 watts, and nearly no difference on idle. If your really worried about that, make sure you get a 80-plus gold, and look at your video cards solution. Both of those are going to affect power usage by a lot more.

tdp difference is 35w, that translates into a bit more at the wall.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/03/23/intel-core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-review/7

i know what i'm doing, this isn't my first rodeo