Given that both are likely to OC in the same neighborhood, it's likely that that range will be true both of stock vs. stock and OC vs. OC benches. This would mean that at least BD should be able to closely approximate stock 2500 or 2600k performance after OC in gaming, and be a decent choice for users that need tons of "cores". Who knows.
How is that even remotely a good gaming chip? With SB having at least 50% IPC advantage it would take a 6GHz BD to even match a 4GHz SB in 4-threaded games and other stuff. I wouldn't even count on hitting anything more than 5GHz with BD; a 2600K @ 4.8GHz uses only 30W more than a stock 8150 at load. (150W vs 120W) It's isn't a stretch to say a 5GHz BD is going to be a Prescott style space heater.
The slides present the same benchmarks with the main difference being the reversal of results b/w 2600k and 8150..and the same graphics...Could one of the attendees have the nerve to produce false results like that? What kind of people do AMD accept at such presentations?
One is from OBR, the other from a chinese website
which one is more fake?:hmm:
By the way where is JF-AMD? Haven't seen him in any of the other sites. Hopefully he is preparing a 'Suck on this I told you so' speech for the 12th at the Intel fanboy forums...
Maybe he is hunting for big fat crow he will have to eat once it turns out all those "fake" benchmarks are close to ugly truth.
Where do you get your performance numbers?
Where do you get your ipc number in games?
Maybe he is hunting for big fat crow he will have to eat once it turns out all those "fake" benchmarks are close to ugly truth.
no biggie to boot with 2600NB, 2800 boots only with extremer voltages (board even sets 1.45 on AUTO ) While for 2600 I don't need to adjust voltages at all. 3000 and higher is no post... Thomas has similar issues.
I have 1.58.6 CPU-Z, I heard .7 version is released soon
Overal 9905 is faster in almost every app, New ram dividers work top notch, love that 2400mhz
I see no big boost going from 1600 to 1866, 2133 is where all enthousiast users should aim at for daily clocks. 2400Mhz might be over the top for 24/7. But for games the difference is negligable, same as with all platforms...
By the way where is JF-AMD? Haven't seen him in any of the other sites. Hopefully he is preparing a 'Suck on this I told you so' speech for the 12th at the Intel fanboy forums...
You got a 300 fps monitor?, i would love to vsync my GPU to your TFT.
Yeah I'm a fanboy of neither company, though I feel the best likely scenario is that some midrange BD chips can OC and become a much better value than locked chips like the 2-core 2100 and 4-core 2400. Really with Intel the glory begins with the 2500k, and $220ish is a lot for some people. If one can get a BD for $150ish and do an easy OC to hit roughly stock 2500k levels, I think that's a win.
I think people should be crazy to expect even the top BD to be able to match 2500k/2600k gaming scores when both are overclocked to common speeds (~4.5ghz is nearly a lock for decent air cooling and stock volts for the Ks, probably about the same or a shade more for the BD?).
The ultimate lesson has always been to wait for the pros like Anand to get the real story out though.
I think your right.
And:
Looks like it ll be faster than the 2500k atleast, in most apps, and faster than the Corei7 980x for gameing.
The first picture says that the FX chip has similar performance as an i7 while saving you 800 dollars. I was wondering if someone could clarify what they mean by saving 800 dollars? From my understanding the FX chip is about 80 dollars cheaper then an i7, so wouldn't be closer to 80 dollars?
How is that even remotely a good gaming chip? With SB having at least 50% IPC advantage it would take a 6GHz BD to even match a 4GHz SB in 4-threaded games and other stuff. I wouldn't even count on hitting anything more than 5GHz with BD; a 2600K @ 4.8GHz uses only 30W more than a stock 8150 at load. (150W vs 120W) It's isn't a stretch to say a 5GHz BD is going to be a Prescott style space heater.
The first picture says that the FX chip has similar performance as an i7 while saving you 800 dollars. I was wondering if someone could clarify what they mean by saving 800 dollars? From my understanding the FX chip is about 80 dollars cheaper then an i7, so wouldn't be closer to 80 dollars?
The slide says i7 990x which is a $1000 chip.
Heh, right now i believe that even people with NDA dont know the real performance of FX8150 .
edit: unless they have real silicon
I just recently became interested in BD because I'm looking for something to encode videos faster without having to deal with overclocking my pc. I currently have a pheonom x4 and was hoping that the FX chip would surpass the i7 but now I'm just hoping that it can deliver the same performance as an i7. Well, only got 1 more week left until we find out.
are u serious?
No realistically are you saying AMD even has a chance against a 1000 dollar 990X?
This is why i flipped my lid on all the other bulldozer threads... and the thing that is even more funny is you guys expect BD to even get close to a 990X?
Hell the AMD can even get 6ghz... for all i care... the 990X will still slaughter BD and only lose to price.
There's a reason why intel kept it as there flag ship processor.
-END-
Who do we ah heck here to see some icc free benchmarking on linux. Johan did one test on server chips, where inexplicably Opterons creamed Xeons in Linux, but were embarassed in Windows environment. That has something to do with scheduler and is being addressed in win 8 (as one accompanying slide explained the 10% boost). On the other hand, in windows, certain software is compiled with icc and well, look at Agner Fog's blog to see what's wrong. AVX support may or may not be there, but icc will run SSE2 on non-intel chips. Same with SSE3 and SSE4.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#121
It gets really silly when they run 386 code (yes, you read it right) instead of AVX.
are u serious?
So what happens when you pit a real HEX core against a real QUADCORE? Well the X6 shows you, and what ive been telling everyone on AT for the past 3 months...
*sigh*
Leave the 970, 980, 990, 995, W5670 W5680 OUT.
Thats what intel calls Cheating... and they know it... which is why there just riding it out.
Ars found out that by changing the CPUID of a VIA Nano processor to AuthenticAMD you could increase performance in PCMark 2005's memory subsystem test by 10% - changing it to GenuineIntel yields a 47.4% performance improvement!
They have all been sent a mind-altering drug along with fake silicon
... or was it supposed to be a belt-buckle?
In unrelated news, my ASUS AM3+ MB was a DoA and i had to get a replacement .. and now i have to really get back to work.
How do you know?Well, not all NDA people have access to real silicon and belt-buckles , only on AMDs slides