Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[sdifox]

Is this more to your liking? It even has extra protection for the user. People can add their own text to it as they see fit.

that's a minefield clearer...or whatever they are called. not bulldozer...

 

[jvroig]

that's a minefield clearer...or whatever they are called. not bulldozer...

It's an armored bulldozer, close enough I'd say.

 

[trollolo]

that's a minefield clearer...or whatever they are called. not bulldozer...

and all the AMD press releases have had some guy sitting next to a frontloader

[x] Has no clue about server software whatsoever and/or is a troll.

I go with the second one - the name.

but these aren't server-grade processors, they're consumer bound

 

[Tsavo]

that's a minefield clearer...or whatever they are called. not bulldozer...

That's an IDF bulldozer. They use them on occasion to plow down homes of Palestinians. They give occupants exactly one warning before they start plowing.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-16/...el-corrie-israeli-military-source?_s=PM:WORLD

 

[Redshirt 24]

(I had to do it. I'm sorry. )

 

[jvroig]

but these aren't server-grade processors, they're consumer bound

What are you talking about? It's an Opteron. 16-cores. Server.

The desktop BD variants only go up to 8 in the current desktop roadmap.

So 16-cores = no joke. It's not for your PC. It's for our servers.

 

[Voo]

but these aren't server-grade processors, they're consumer bound

[x] Has no clue about AMD's CPU naming whatsoever.

Ok that's getting old, but really when did Opterons get AMD's consumer CPUs?

 

[sdifox]

[x] Has no clue about AMD's CPU naming whatsoever.

Ok that's getting old, but really when did Opterons get AMD's consumer CPUs?

Opteron 1 series. Dual core socket 939.


<- has a 165

 

[Voo]

Opteron 1 series. Dual core socket 939.

<- has a 165

That was also sold as a workstation or server CPU (both things which can profit from lots of cores). The 939 opterons were sold as low-end servers (cheap mb+cpu for cheap servers, not the worst idea I'd think), but that really doesn't make them consumer CPUs.

 

[jvroig]

Opteron 1 series. Dual core socket 939.

They just offered cheap low-end versions of Opterons (just as Intel did for their Xeon at least a year ago or so), but it doesn't mean it is "consumer" grade. It's still part of their server line, even if you decide to buy an affordable server-grade CPU for your desktop it doesn't make it consumer-grade.

 

[sdifox]

That was also sold as a workstation or server CPU (both things which can profit from lots of cores). The 939 opterons were sold as low-end servers (cheap mb+cpu for cheap servers, not the worst idea I'd think), but that really doesn't make them consumer CPUs.

They just offered cheap low-end versions of Opterons (just as Intel did for their Xeon at least a year ago or so), but it doesn't mean it is "consumer" grade. It's still part of their server line, even if you decide to buy an affordable server-grade CPU for your desktop it doesn't make it consumer-grade.

The distinction between Opteron server and desktop chips was the socket. And the fact that the 939 chips were not multi cpu capable.

 

[jvroig]

AMD and Intel are clear with their brandings with regards to what is consumer and what is business/server grade - Xeon and Opteron are not consumer grade.

Both companies have released, at one time or another, lower-end SKUs for both server brands - such as that Opteron 165, or Intel's Xeon X3430 that fit in 1156.

It doesn't make it "consumer-grade". It just so happens that, unlike the more expensive of their brethren, some consumers MAY be able to afford them, particularly if they are meant to be compatible with more commodity parts (for cheap low-end servers offered by HP/Dell/etc, or even whitebox servers built from scratch like we do at our company). They were not meant to be consumer CPUs, and aren't.

I don't know why anyone would want to argue this point.
Consumers = Core i3/5/7, Pentium, Celeron, Phenom, Athlon, Sempron.
Servers/Workstation/"Business Class" = Xeon, Opteron.

I don't recall a time that Intel / AMD ever wavered with this distinction, or ever implied or suggested that they will start offering their prestigious Xeon / Opteron brands to the consumer market.

 

[ShadowVVL]

So will we be seeing any dual socket boards for Zambezi like the old quad fx?

 

[Idontcare]

So will we be seeing any dual socket boards for Zambezi like the old quad fx?

Unlikely, owing to the fact that the sockets are not interchangeable. (AM3 vs. G34)

Its not like the situation with Intel where they keep the socket/chipset compatibility there for 1S/2S systems and the desktop versions of the chips.

My preference would be that instead of investing time/effort/resources into developing a 2S consumer board for dual-socket Zambezi's which would have a ~280W TDP as a system (2x140W TDP) that instead they just bin out some monster FX chips which have 280W TDP for a single socket.

We can cool 280W chips, they do it all the time with GPU's and even then they manage to cram the coolers into the space of 2 or 3 PCIE slots, not even some 6" tall cooling monster.

So keep that top-end TDP at a system integration level, but slam a 300W behemoth CPU into it.

That's what my QX6700 chip basically was, when OC'ed to 4GHz it used about 270W. Cooling was manageable and the desktop performance was better than trying to go for 2xQ6600 or some such.

 

[bridito]

Was the second one an intentional double negative? Im guessing not, but hey one never knows. You marketing types are crafty.

Can you give us an indication of how likely desktop BD is to be released on or about September 19?

He can't comment on that. I wish he could, but it's not going to be possible given his position.... sigh....

 

[ShadowVVL]

Unlikely, owing to the fact that the sockets are not interchangeable. (AM3 vs. G34)

Its not like the situation with Intel where they keep the socket/chipset compatibility there for 1S/2S systems and the desktop versions of the chips.

My preference would be that instead of investing time/effort/resources into developing a 2S consumer board for dual-socket Zambezi's which would have a ~280W TDP as a system (2x140W TDP) that instead they just bin out some monster FX chips which have 280W TDP for a single socket.

We can cool 280W chips, they do it all the time with GPU's and even then they manage to cram the coolers into the space of 2 or 3 PCIE slots, not even some 6" tall cooling monster.

So keep that top-end TDP at a system integration level, but slam a 300W behemoth CPU into it.

That's what my QX6700 chip basically was, when OC'ed to 4GHz it used about 270W. Cooling was manageable and the desktop performance was better than trying to go for 2xQ6600 or some such.

yeah that kinda makes sense.

I was thinking maybe amd would make a 2S enthusiast platform to compete with SB-E.

 

[BlueBlazer]

I was thinking maybe amd would make a 2S enthusiast platform to compete with SB-E.

The last time AMD tried that was the (abandonware) Quad FX platform.

 

[brybir]

Anyone see this article over at Toms posted today:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-bulldozer-cpu-fx-series-motherboard,13342.html

Basically says this: (Name, Freq, L2cache, core name, stepping, thermal envelope, system bus, bios revision)

"AMD FX-8150 3600MHz 1MBx8 Bulldozer B2 125W 5200 F4
AMD FX-8120 3100MHz 1MBx8 Bulldozer B2 125W 5200 F4
AMD FX-8120 3100MHz 1MBx8 Bulldozer B2 95W 5200 F4
AMD FX-8100 2800MHz 1MBx8 Bulldozer B2 95W 5200 F4
AMD FX-6100 3300MHz 1MBx6 Bulldozer B2 95W 5200 F4
AMD FX-4100 3600MHz 1MBx4 Bulldozer B2 95W 5200 F4


The FX-8150 is clocked at 3.6 GHz, 8-cores, TDP of 125W and system bus at 5200 MT/s (up from 4000 MT/s of previous generations). You'll notice the FX-8120 listed both TDP of 125W and 95W. You should expect on initial launch, the 125W TDP models will be the first to the market, later followed by the 95W TDP chips.

The FX-6100 is clocked at 3.3 GHz, 6-cores, TDP of 95W, along with system bus at 5200 MT/s. The FX-4100 is clocked at 3.6 GHz, 4-cores, TDP of 95W, along with bus at 5200 MT/s. One might begin to piece together that the FX-6100 and FX-4100 are likely to be Zambezi with 1 module and 2 modules disabled, respectively, rather than native 3-module / 2-module dies. (Do I see an unlocked FX-4100 to an FX-8150 in my future?)

All CPUs feature 8MB L3 cache and are based on 32nm process"

 

[blackened23]

Some interesting info in this thread. I really have high hopes for BD, I really have my fingers crossed that they deliver a knockout chip. Having a viable competetor would do nothing but good things for the enthusiast community..

 

[bridito]

Some interesting info in this thread. I really have high hopes for BD, I really have my fingers crossed that they deliver a knockout chip. Having a viable competetor would do nothing but good things for the enthusiast community..

Ah, I was like you... once... before my expectations of BD became subterranean. :'(

I'm still hoping for the best, but expecting a CPU which will be chewed up and spit out by SB-E in every benchmark under the sun. Whenever it is that they will finally get around to releasing it.

 

[piesquared]

The last time AMD tried that was the (abandonware) Quad FX platform.

And the last time In Tel tried this was the (abandonware) skulltrail platform.

 

[sequoia464]

So - what is the concensus here? Still Sept. 19 release date??

 

[nonameo]

So - what is the concensus here? Still Sept. 19 release date??

The consensus is that it will be here when it gets here. Unfortunately :-/

 

[BlueBlazer]

http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/Hardwa...seurs-bulldozer-sujet_856847_555.htm#t8029265

Quite odd, because the prices of Opteon 6176 SE on the same site is higher at $1750. Something amiss here?

And the last time In Tel tried this was the (abandonware) skulltrail platform.

At least Skulltrail was available and Intel had no qualms showing off the system (widely demoed, and performed better than Quad FX) . On the other hand, AMD had a "hush hush" launch with the Quad FX platform (even AMD hardly mentions/demonstrate it at all in most public events outside of reviews, there was availability issues and subsequently we all saw how the Quad FX system turned out to be). The Intel dual socket saga continues today with EVGA's SR2..

So - what is the concensus here? Still Sept. 19 release date??

No idea yet, until AMD officially announces a date.

 

[bridito]

Quad FX system turned out to be

Oh sweet Gawd. I saw Quad FX morph into BD as I was reading it. Heaven help us & AMD if history repeats (and repeats) itself.