- Status
Like to see benchmarks 
Look, you may not care, but its not easy to squeeze every last GHz/MHz out of the processor overclocking. So it is an accomplishment. There is overclocking, and then there is knowing how to push things to the extreme limits. Also this kind of overclocking gives you an idea how fast the cpu will be in a few years, as the die shrinks the cpu doesn't have to be cooled as much. And also shows what is possible now. Heat is just holding back technology and its out enemy.
Look, you may not care, but its not easy to squeeze every last GHz/MHz out of the processor overclocking. So it is an accomplishment. There is overclocking, and then there is knowing how to push things to the extreme limits. Also this kind of overclocking gives you an idea how fast the cpu will be in a few years, as the die shrinks the cpu doesn't have to be cooled as much. And also shows what is possible now. Heat is just holding back technology
and its out enemy.
shqtth :
Like to see benchmarks
Look, you may not care, but its not easy to squeeze every last GHz/MHz out of the processor overclocking. So it is an accomplishment. There is overclocking, and then there is knowing how to push things to the extreme limits. Also this kind of overclocking gives you an idea how fast the cpu will be in a few years, as the die shrinks the cpu doesn't have to be cooled as much. And also shows what is possible now. Heat is just holding back technology and its out enemy.
Look, you may not care, but its not easy to squeeze every last GHz/MHz out of the processor overclocking. So it is an accomplishment. There is overclocking, and then there is knowing how to push things to the extreme limits. Also this kind of overclocking gives you an idea how fast the cpu will be in a few years, as the die shrinks the cpu doesn't have to be cooled as much. And also shows what is possible now. Heat is just holding back technology
and its out enemy.
ive now decided to move to the arctic circle, ill take my watercooled loop with me, plus some antifreeze
then noone will stop the overclocks
The only real problem with the original Phenom was that it couldn't clock very well, that stupid errata that you had no chance of seeing in real life was just a PR attack on AMD, Intel has their own errata too.
Now that AMD fixed their clock issues and took a lead in clocking, their being criticized for clocking too high. When Intel won a benchmark vs Phenom II, it's because hyperthreading is "just like having 8 cores(not)", when AMD wins, it's because "they had to have twice as many cores to do it", and Sandy Bridge is magically just a quad core again, and therefore "twice as fast per core", even though nobodies taking into consideration that the benchmark might not utilize 8 cores.
If every Intel fanboy would take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why they do what they do, the world would be a better place.
Now that AMD fixed their clock issues and took a lead in clocking, their being criticized for clocking too high. When Intel won a benchmark vs Phenom II, it's because hyperthreading is "just like having 8 cores(not)", when AMD wins, it's because "they had to have twice as many cores to do it", and Sandy Bridge is magically just a quad core again, and therefore "twice as fast per core", even though nobodies taking into consideration that the benchmark might not utilize 8 cores.
If every Intel fanboy would take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why they do what they do, the world would be a better place.
halcyon
Splendid
- Dec 4, 2004
- 5,566
- 0
- 25,810
[citation][nom]r3alizt[/nom]The only real problem with the original Phenom was that it couldn't clock very well, that stupid errata that you had no chance of seeing in real life was just a PR attack on AMD, Intel has their own errata too.Now that AMD fixed their clock issues and took a lead in clocking, their being criticized for clocking too high. When Intel won a benchmark vs Phenom II, it's because hyperthreading is "just like having 8 cores(not)", when AMD wins, it's because "they had to have twice as many cores to do it", and Sandy Bridge is magically just a quad core again, and therefore "twice as fast per core", even though nobodies taking into consideration that the benchmark might not utilize 8 cores.If every Intel fanboy would take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why they do what they do, the world would be a better place.[/citation]
Hopefully, fanboys realize these are just desktop CPUs and don't spend all that much time analyzing the world and themselves against them. There's nothing wrong with being enthused about something but it needs to be kept in perspective. ...being a fanboy for a desktop CPU seems rather ignorant when you step back and look at it, considering the current events of the world.
Hopefully, fanboys realize these are just desktop CPUs and don't spend all that much time analyzing the world and themselves against them. There's nothing wrong with being enthused about something but it needs to be kept in perspective. ...being a fanboy for a desktop CPU seems rather ignorant when you step back and look at it, considering the current events of the world.
you're pretty close to the truth, yet so far....
main reason fx is sold out because amd couldn't make that many. amd's fx manufacturer global foundries is facing quite a lot of issues with 32 nm yields and production, switching from 45 nm. that's what is affecting llano and fx. the problem is severe enough for amd to renegotiate their contract with glofo. a small number of product sellings out doesn't mean it's a successful launch. while it's unfortunate that llano is facing this problem, fx's low supply is a good news.
zacate doesn't have that problem, tsmc makes them.
I buy both AMD and Intel.. I have a sandybridge in my laptop now, but will get AMD FX for my desktop soon. You have to support the little guy too or intel prices will be like they were in the pentium and pentium pro days where you cant get a processor for under 1000... lets face it, on most apps anyway a few fps are not going to make that big of a diff... just a thought..
captaincharisma
Glorious
- Oct 13, 2004
- 10,963
- 76
- 45,290
breaks another speed record but doesn't perform well like always. but yet the AMD fanbois still chirp:
squawk! WAIT FOR WINDOWS 8 squawk! WAIT FOR WINDOWS 8
squawk! WAIT FOR WINDOWS 8 squawk! WAIT FOR WINDOWS 8
oblivionlord
Distinguished
- Aug 29, 2007
- 68
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]r3alizt[/nom]The only real problem with the original Phenom was that it couldn't clock very well, that stupid errata that you had no chance of seeing in real life was just a PR attack on AMD, Intel has their own errata too.
Now that AMD fixed their clock issues and took a lead in clocking, their being criticized for clocking too high. When Intel won a benchmark vs Phenom II, it's because hyperthreading is "just like having 8 cores(not)", when AMD wins, it's because "they had to have twice as many cores to do it", and Sandy Bridge is magically just a quad core again, and therefore "twice as fast per core", even though nobodies taking into consideration that the benchmark might not utilize 8 cores.[/citation]
Fixed their clock issues? huh? They made it worse. Clock for clock bulldozer looses against k10+. That's a step backwards. However the benefit of Bulldozer is to utilize more threads with real cores which is what they are trying to achieve. This just isn't going to flourish in Windows anytime soon because Windows isn't out to immediately optimize their OS just for newly released hardware. In order to get this benefit in Windows, you're just going to have to wait till Q4 2012 when Win8 arrives. On the flip side of this, AMD should recognize this and design around the most popular mainstream OS being Win7. Although the performance is there in Linux to show off Bulldozer against Intel, Linux simply can't be the underlining answer because its less than 1% of the mainstream market.
BTW.... Phenom 1 was a disappointment because it was touted as the first 'native' quad which was supposed to have better performance than Intel's non-native quad the Kentsfield. Obviously the TLB bug inhibited Phenom from performing at its best from the start. However they fixed it later with the 9x50 B3 series which was at that point more of a fair testing grounds. Even at that point the Kenstfield still beats the Phenom 9950x4 in the majority of tests and has a ton less power draw meaning more efficiency and on top of that, the Kenstfield is using the old P4 FSB.
Here's the comparison showing 9950x4 loosing against Q6600 in the majority of tests even outside of gaming.....
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-20.html
Now that AMD fixed their clock issues and took a lead in clocking, their being criticized for clocking too high. When Intel won a benchmark vs Phenom II, it's because hyperthreading is "just like having 8 cores(not)", when AMD wins, it's because "they had to have twice as many cores to do it", and Sandy Bridge is magically just a quad core again, and therefore "twice as fast per core", even though nobodies taking into consideration that the benchmark might not utilize 8 cores.[/citation]
Fixed their clock issues? huh? They made it worse. Clock for clock bulldozer looses against k10+. That's a step backwards. However the benefit of Bulldozer is to utilize more threads with real cores which is what they are trying to achieve. This just isn't going to flourish in Windows anytime soon because Windows isn't out to immediately optimize their OS just for newly released hardware. In order to get this benefit in Windows, you're just going to have to wait till Q4 2012 when Win8 arrives. On the flip side of this, AMD should recognize this and design around the most popular mainstream OS being Win7. Although the performance is there in Linux to show off Bulldozer against Intel, Linux simply can't be the underlining answer because its less than 1% of the mainstream market.
BTW.... Phenom 1 was a disappointment because it was touted as the first 'native' quad which was supposed to have better performance than Intel's non-native quad the Kentsfield. Obviously the TLB bug inhibited Phenom from performing at its best from the start. However they fixed it later with the 9x50 B3 series which was at that point more of a fair testing grounds. Even at that point the Kenstfield still beats the Phenom 9950x4 in the majority of tests and has a ton less power draw meaning more efficiency and on top of that, the Kenstfield is using the old P4 FSB.
Here's the comparison showing 9950x4 loosing against Q6600 in the majority of tests even outside of gaming.....
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-20.html
clonazepam
Distinguished
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,629
- 0
- 21,310
AstroTC
Distinguished
- Oct 31, 2010
- 347
- 0
- 18,810
So just because AMD doesnt beat Intel its crap? I am not a fanboy of anyone. I buy whatever suites my needs. After reading these comments its clear to see everyones maturity to the subject maxes out at around age 13. A record was broken, the article didnt say "AMD attempts to beat Intel" so you guys should just stop it.
clonazepam
Distinguished
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,629
- 0
- 21,310
[citation][nom]halcyon[/nom]Yeah, now that I think about it just suppose there was a nice motherboard that you could drop 2 bulldozers in and still have a sweet overclock. Might not be efficient but tell me it wouldn't be just a little tasty.[/citation]
And cpus competing for just as much power as some 580s? As a joke, it'd be funny to mod a PSU to look like a high-end car battery (a fake alternator would be over the top)
And cpus competing for just as much power as some 580s? As a joke, it'd be funny to mod a PSU to look like a high-end car battery (a fake alternator would be over the top)
[citation][nom]AstroTC[/nom]So just because AMD doesnt beat Intel its crap? I am not a fanboy of anyone. I buy whatever suites my needs. After reading these comments its clear to see everyones maturity to the subject maxes out at around age 13. A record was broken, the article didnt say "AMD attempts to beat Intel" so you guys should just stop it.[/citation]
I think the hostilities come in due to AMD fanboys harassing Intel fanboys back in the days of the Pentium 4. Remember the efforts to hit 8 GHZ with the Pentium 4 under extreme cooling? The same type of people who laud AMD's architecture for "achieving" this are the same types, pretty much, who dismissed it back when Intel did it. Nobody likes a hypocrite and it often provokes bad reactions.
It's the whole "Everything Intel does must be evil or bad/Everything AMD does must be for the good of the consumer and noble" type thinking that sets some people off. It'll be twisted every which way depending on which company each individual supports.
I think the hostilities come in due to AMD fanboys harassing Intel fanboys back in the days of the Pentium 4. Remember the efforts to hit 8 GHZ with the Pentium 4 under extreme cooling? The same type of people who laud AMD's architecture for "achieving" this are the same types, pretty much, who dismissed it back when Intel did it. Nobody likes a hypocrite and it often provokes bad reactions.
It's the whole "Everything Intel does must be evil or bad/Everything AMD does must be for the good of the consumer and noble" type thinking that sets some people off. It'll be twisted every which way depending on which company each individual supports.
clonazepam
Distinguished
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,629
- 0
- 21,310
I think its partly due to it having 'FX' in the name, where its performance falls in line in real world tests done today (key), and the price being a little high in my opinion.
All around, it is a decent chip that should have had more modest marketing/hype and a different name for those that care whether a rose is called a rose or not...
It also seems like a lot of people wished it was a completely different product than it is. Many say a shrink and refinements/improvements (usb 3.0, sata iii, pcie 3.0, more cache, more base clock, better core efficiency, etc) to the 1100T might have been a better target and kept 'bulldozer' in the R&D while simultaneously trying to move the software side of things to be better equipped to utilize its "revolutionary" design and have that foundation already in place at launch.
The Pentium 4 taught me to do my research (bought Athlon 64 chips myself).
All around, it is a decent chip that should have had more modest marketing/hype and a different name for those that care whether a rose is called a rose or not...
It also seems like a lot of people wished it was a completely different product than it is. Many say a shrink and refinements/improvements (usb 3.0, sata iii, pcie 3.0, more cache, more base clock, better core efficiency, etc) to the 1100T might have been a better target and kept 'bulldozer' in the R&D while simultaneously trying to move the software side of things to be better equipped to utilize its "revolutionary" design and have that foundation already in place at launch.
The Pentium 4 taught me to do my research (bought Athlon 64 chips myself).
halcyon
Splendid
- Dec 4, 2004
- 5,566
- 0
- 25,810
[citation][nom]clonazepam[/nom]And cpus competing for just as much power as some 580s? As a joke, it'd be funny to mod a PSU to look like a high-end car battery (a fake alternator would be over the top)[/citation]
LOL. ...and AMD could call it the PowerPlant.
LOL. ...and AMD could call it the PowerPlant.
clonazepam
Distinguished
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,629
- 0
- 21,310
[citation][nom]halcyon[/nom]LOL. ...and AMD could call it the PowerPlant.[/citation]
I would love for someone to squeeze a Jacob's Ladder inside any PC build... how's that for sending a message?
I would love for someone to squeeze a Jacob's Ladder inside any PC build... how's that for sending a message?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 16
-
-
Question Buying a used card, what should I look for before purchase?- Started by MatthewJamess
- Replies: 8
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram