Should AMD have focused on a Steamroller high TDP product line instead of Vishera?

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Yes I did bother to check both references, 38 and 43, and one of them contains the confirmation by AMD on Steamroller FX chips for the AM3+ socket. It seems you missed the reference 43, which is

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2208525/amd-sticks-with-socket-am3-for-steamroller

Can you provide one link refuting the mine?

In your link, it seems to say the article is dated "Sep 27 2012, 10:01". This sounds rather old to me (in the fast paced world of computing), so things could well have changed by now.

 

[mrmt]

Yes I did bother to check both references, 38 and 43, and one of them contains the confirmation by AMD on Steamroller FX chips for the AM3+ socket. It seems you missed the reference 43, which is

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2208525/amd-sticks-with-socket-am3-for-steamroller

Can you provide one link refuting the mine?

So >>The Inquirer<< is now an official confirmation?

What do you want next? A link refuting the existence of flying sauces?

 

[NTMBK]

Yes I did bother to check both references, 38 and 43, and one of them contains the confirmation by AMD on Steamroller FX chips for the AM3+ socket. It seems you missed the reference 43, which is

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2208525/amd-sticks-with-socket-am3-for-steamroller

Can you provide one link refuting the mine?

Reading comprehension fail.

The paragraph you refer to is this:

The firm not only confirmed that Socket AM3+ users can expect at least one more chip, almost certainly one based on the Steamroller architecture, it said that all of its future processors "in a few years time" will be socket compatible.

The section in bold is an assumption made by the Inquirer, not part of a statement from AMD.

 

[galego]

In your link, it seems to say the article is dated "Sep 27 2012, 10:01". This sounds rather old to me (in the fast paced world of computing), so things could well have changed by now.

Irrelevant, unless you have a link that shows that things have changed.

So >>The Inquirer<< is now an official confirmation?

What do you want next? A link refuting the existence of flying sauces?

Irrelevant, unless you have a better source that discredits mine.

Reading comprehension fail.

The paragraph you refer to is this:

The section in bold is an assumption made by the Inquirer, not part of a statement from AMD.

The only paragraph I cited was from the Wiki. I didn't refer to a paragraph from the Inquirer but to an entire article, including its title.

Do you have a link that shows that what you bolded is an assumption made by the Inquirer? Do you have a link that invalidates the quote from the Wiki?

Whereas some of the five posters involved in this funny discussion provide me some link that shows that there is no Steamroller FX, I will provide another source:

Just like in case of the Bulldozer architecture, Steamroller x86 cores - which will power AMD's future high-performance Opteron and FX chips - will be located inside dual-core modules (...)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...h_Steamroller_Micro_Architecture_in_2013.html

 

[mrmt]

IThe only paragraph I cited was from the Wiki. I didn't refer to a paragraph from the Inquirer but to an entire article, including its title.

Do you have a link that shows that what you bolded is an assumption made by the Inquirer? Do you have a link that invalidates the quote from the Wiki[/URL]

The Wikipedia article you linked points to two sources to validate their Steamroller FX claims:

- The inquirer story

- AMD FAD 2012 slides

If we follow the Inquirer story we have there is they talking about a possibility. The Inquirer did nor confirm neither deny the rumor they started in the first place. So what we have here is an unconfirmed rumor, which is already 1 year old.

If we check the other source, AMD FAD 2012 slides, we cannot find a single reference for Steamroller FX. It couldn't not even be used to validate that claim. It's probably there because it confirms that there will be a Steamroller >>core<< because it mentions Kaveri in 2013. In fact, the roadmap in the FAD 2012 slides were before Richland was anounced.

So what we have here is essentially... nothing. An old rumor started by the Inquirer and a poorly referenced Wikipedia article, probably written by a fanboi like you. Sorry, the burden of the proof is on you, not on us. It's you who is claiming something, it's you who must provide evidence of Steamroller existence, not the other way around.

Ed: I saw that you mentioned the incompetents at Xbitlabs too, and guess what, they pulled the rumor out of a very dark hole too.

Here are AMD slides that Anton Shilov used to support his poor analysis:

http://www.worldhostingdays.com/downloads/2012-local/amd-king.pdf

And again, he messed up big time. First the slides weren't from Q113 as he states, but Q412. And the most important bit: There is no mention to Steamroller FX, just that Steamroller will be used in servers. This by no means contradicts the current roadmap, which mentions a Kaveri Opteron chip, but it does not offer any support to your hypothesis.

 

[Idontcare]

I believed that it was vox populi that AMD will release FX Steamroller CPUs, but ok, I will try:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)#3rd_Generation_.28Steamroller.29

Could all that people who has negated FX steamroller provide some link please? If AMD has cancelled them some link would be available.

I asked for an official confirmation, the same as you are asking for in your prior posts.

Do you view wiki to be an acceptable source of official confirmation of information relating to AMD products and roadmaps?

 

[dac7nco]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...h_Steamroller_Micro_Architecture_in_2013.html

Yeah, Anton has a successful history, and is known to be a psychic.

 

[NTMBK]

1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
2. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
3. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

For goodness sake, you could have written that page yourself.

 

[monstercameron]

1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
2. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
3. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

For goodness sake, you could have written that page yourself.

I edited a few of the via s3 pages a while back...

 

[Mallibu]

You compile whatever benchmarks you like, and run them on your 8350, say, at 4.8GHz. I'll run the standard binaries on a 3930K at stock. We'll post them here, with screenshots. I'll run them on my 3470 as well, if you like. I look forward to it. Without hardware at your fingertips, you're blowing smoke. I don't believe you have access to anything even approaching the hardware you espouse, and being on this forum all day, posting in a constant stream of free time, lets me understand why.

Daimon

That would be nice & interesting to see.
Too bad that he buries his head in the sand when he's asked to actually prove all the nonsense he's spreading.

 

[AMDer]

1- It is not 5GHz CPU. It is 4.7GHz base clock with 5GHz max turbo clock

Wrong, "5GHz max turbo clock" means it can be easily OCed to a fixed 5GHz. SO it can be a 5GHz CPU.

2- just keep in mind that i7 4770 beats FX-8350 in heavy multi-threaded benchmarks. And FX-9590 has only 17.5% higher clock speed when comparing the base clock speed. So, FX-9590 is going to be just slightly faster than i7 4770K in heavy multi-threaded benchmarks (maybe just ~ 10% faster). i7 4770 is still going to rape it in single and lightly threaded benchmarks.

Almost everything I do is muti thread, it has 8 cores so I will deliberately use 7 of those cores for most of what I do.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Necrothread...

 

[monstercameron]

meh

 

[NTMBK]

Woah, weird to see a Galego thread again. That guy really livened the place up... though not in a good way...

 

[Ajay]

Wrong, "5GHz max turbo clock" means it can be easily OCed to a fixed 5GHz. SO it can be a 5GHz CPU.

Almost everything I do is muti thread, it has 8 cores so I will deliberately use 7 of those cores for most of what I do.

So this is what you do on your first post here, dredge up a five month old thread

 

[BallaTheFeared]

"Coincidence"

 

[monstercameron]

i liked the posts galego made, he behaved like a man with a cause...

 

[NTMBK]

i liked the posts galego made, he behaved like a man with a cause...

They had a certain popcorn value, but his argumentative style and inability to recognise when he was in the wrong tended to just trash entire threads.

 

[Abwx]

Woah, weird to see a Galego thread again. That guy really livened the place up... though not in a good way...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2325469

A Galego thread , did you say.??.

They had a certain popcorn value, but his argumentative style and inability to recognise when he was in the wrong tended to just trash entire threads.

I guess that he attracted thread crappers more than he crapped
the threads actualy , in short he was held responsible for his
opponents obvious derailings...

 

[CHADBOGA]

I guess that he attracted thread crappers more than he crapped
the threads actualy , in short he was held responsible for his
opponents obvious derailings...

He appeared to be mentally unbalanced and was held responsible for his own trolling.

 

[blackened23]

He appeared to be mentally unbalanced and was held responsible for his own trolling.

I wonder if he made top 5 AMD shill ranking prior to getting banned? AMD had a top shill ranking site somewhere and that Durvelle guy was rank 5. ..someone linked that website in the video card forum. Unfortunately that forum is infested with galegos.