The highest for consumers markets but not in server/ws markets ,
you should know it....
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon X5698 - AT80614007314AA.html
Unless you want to count the rate the ALU's actually ran at
But yes, the clock generator rate on these will officially be the highest ever for an x86 CPU.
Remember that TSMC doesn't do SOI and that's a big part of AMD's plans. I believe they're sticking to SOI on 28nm as well, so that would make the APUs (28nm APUs) a GloFo thing as well. It wouldn't work on TSMC, never mind the transitioning time that it would take. But don't be so quick to blame this on GloFo. I've been saying this for months now, but the power consumption and clocks were more related to the architecture and design rather than poor yields. As I've said before, even Intel couldn't produce the chips AMD initially wanted for Bulldozer, and any problems GloFo had were on Llano (GloFo had to hit the ground running when it came to making the GPUs on Llano, but they're very good at making CPUs).
AMD claimed a 10-15% performance increase from perf-per-watt, IPC and clock speeds per year. I highly doubt we'll get 15% IPC from that. That's the bad news. The good news is that they increased their performance estimates on Trinity to represent "uplift" rather than "under digital media workloads." So here's to hoping it isn't about instruction sets and they pull another Bulldozer (Congratulations on your new processor! I sure hope you like AVX!)
Can you do me a favor and run some of those at Llano clock speeds? I'm wondering how far off the IPC is and just how much ground AMD will have to make up for Trinity.
Blckgrffn, I cannot disable the L3 cache through the Bios, or at least I don't see the option. Does anyone have any other ideas?
The highest for consumers markets but not in server/ws markets ,
you should know it....
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon X5698 - AT80614007314AA.html
Nope, didn't know about this CPU.
Strange, it doesn't look like it's on ark.
It's not. But you can buy them.
http://h71016.www7.hp.com/dstore/Mi...=3180&BaseId=36779&oi=E9CED&BEID=20598&SBLID=
many people do care though. its not just the 125 watt TDP but its the fact that Bulldozer wattage can go through the roof when overclocking. why would I want to deal with a ton of more power usage just to get the same performance a 2500k can give? that is money down the drain in electricity, a bigger power supply, and more heat resulting from that extra power usage. again all of that for a slower overall cpu.Am I the only one who doesn't give a crap that these are 125 watt? The same goes for Intel chips. These are desktop CPUs, I don't care. Honestly I just don't care at all.
I've got a PII 965 @ 4.1GHz. It's silent. It has a big fan on it, stays cool all the damn time, even under load and makes almost no noise. I don't flippin care about the wattage. I just don't.
why would I want to deal with a ton of more power usage just to get the same performance a 2500k can give?
well good for you. look at my edited post and tell me that is acceptable. if it is then you are fool in my opinion. lucky for AMD that people like you exist though.I don't care. And if you read my post, you would see that my not caring is equal for AMD or Intel, but it is amusing you chose to turn this into a comparison.
You know why people care? It's a talking point. That's all it is for 99% of people. I've had this PC under my desk for almost two years now and you know how often I think about the wattage? Freaking never. Because it's a non-issue.
how ignorant are you? the card I have cost me 260 bucks and came out way before any 28nm options existed.That is a great question. Maybe you could explain why you want to deal with a ton more power usage (for your GTX 570) just to get worse performance compared to a 7950?
You know why people care? It's a talking point. That's all it is for 99% of people. I've had this PC under my desk for almost two years now and you know how often I think about the wattage? Freaking never. Because it's a non-issue.
how ignorant are you? the card I have cost me 260 bucks and came out way before any 28nm options existed.
Huh, $260, I guess that is pretty cheap. Not unlike the $189 deals you can get for FX-8120...
I guess you are ignorant enough to ridicule and berate others for not caring about power usage, but when proven guilty of doing the same yourself you resort to emoticons.
FYI, the 6 series radeons used a lot less power than your GPU also, options did exist, you just didn't care about power usage all that much, apparently.
well good for you. look at my edited post and tell me that is acceptable. if it is then you are fool in my opinion. lucky for AMD that people like you exist though.
more nonsense from you? when you quoted me I was talking about an overclocked Bulldozer cpu compared to an overclocked Sandy Bridge cpu. if you actually look at the link, the difference in power consumption is massive. 270 additional watts for worse overall performance than the 2500k or 2600k is beyond silly. your ignorant comment about my gtx570 is irrelevant. my card performs close to the 6970 while costing me 100 bucks less. and only uses about 20 watts more than a 6970. next time make a better effort to troll.Huh, $260, I guess that is pretty cheap. Not unlike the $189 deals you can get for FX-8120...
I guess you are ignorant enough to ridicule and berate others for not caring about power usage, but when proven guilty of doing the same yourself you resort to emoticons.
FYI, the 6 series radeons used a lot less power than your GPU also, options did exist, you just didn't care about power usage all that much, apparently.
based on your replies here, I am proud to be on your ignore list.I remember now why I put you on ignore. Back on you go.
at stock speeds its not really a huge issue for Bulldozer. the guy I was replying to was talking about TDP and his Phenom being overclocked so I mentioned the difference between an overclocked Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge. but hey if you think 270 watts more for worse overall performance is no big deal then go for it.And when this was Intel sucking the power wit the Pentium D/Prescott, etc. it was lucky for Intel that most people don't pay any damn attention at all to how much power their PC uses.
I bet the vast majority of PC owners would be surprised to find out that not all PCs are created equal with regards to power usage, whether that is a PC from 2012 or 2002.
I'd go so far as to bet that most people would be baffled to as to why one $800 PC is faster than another one. They both cost $800, right? I have been in these peoples houses, stopping myself from shaking my head and chastising them, when they are trying to get their new PC to not be slower than their old one.
That said, those people aren't the ones typically posting in this forum Clearly, most of us care a little bit.
The whole power thing of FX versus SB is pretty ridiculous, IMHO, for the vast majority of users. People who aren't running their PC full tilt 24/7 should just pick the fastest chip for their money. Of course, that changes few of our recommendations...