AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[gamerk316]

According to this its not that impressive.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130702235056_AMD_Kaveri_Engineering_Sample_Found_in_Cosmology_Research_Database.html

There's something wrong with that ES or tests. It's even lower than similar Piledrivers.

An occasional search for various microprocessor models by DresdenBoy revealed quad-core AMD Eng Sample: 2M186092H4467_23/18/12/05_1304 [Family 21 Model 48 Stepping 0] in Cosmology at Home database. It is believed that the chip runs at 1.80GHz default clock-speed, has 2.30GHz Turbo Core frequency and features code-named Spectre graphics processing engine operating at 500MHz clock-rate. The chip is believed to have 35W thermal design power.

The test system was only used once on March 19, 2013. Given the fact that the chip was an early sample based on stepping 0, it is hard to say whether Kaveri suffers from inability to run at high clock-rates, or is simply clocked at moderate frequencies in order to maintain stability.

Potentially problematic situation, given how BD has to be clocked about a GHz faster then IB to be competitive. VERY early in the game though, so I'm not reading too much into this...so far. Worth watching going forward though.

 

[szatkus]

According to this its not that impressive.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130702235056_AMD_Kaveri_Engineering_Sample_Found_in_Cosmology_Research_Database.html

There's something wrong with that ES or tests. It's even lower than similar Piledrivers.

An occasional search for various microprocessor models by DresdenBoy revealed quad-core AMD Eng Sample: 2M186092H4467_23/18/12/05_1304 [Family 21 Model 48 Stepping 0] in Cosmology at Home database. It is believed that the chip runs at 1.80GHz default clock-speed, has 2.30GHz Turbo Core frequency and features code-named Spectre graphics processing engine operating at 500MHz clock-rate. The chip is believed to have 35W thermal design power.

The test system was only used once on March 19, 2013. Given the fact that the chip was an early sample based on stepping 0, it is hard to say whether Kaveri suffers from inability to run at high clock-rates, or is simply clocked at moderate frequencies in order to maintain stability.

Potentially problematic situation, given how BD has to be clocked about a GHz faster then IB to be competitive. VERY early in the game though, so I'm not reading too much into this...so far. Worth watching going forward though.

Look at this: http://cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=187467
Divide by 2 or 3 and it's still much higher than Kaveri. Definitely that ES is screwed.

 

[sarinaide]

http://uk.hardware.info/news/36208/possible-delay-amd-kaveri-apu-successor-is-called-carizo
steamroller looks most likely next year.

According to this its not that impressive.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130702235056_AMD_Kaveri_Engineering_Sample_Found_in_Cosmology_Research_Database.html

4c steamroller apu next year only?
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/27878-there-will-be-no-high-end-steamroller-cpus-from-amd/

Congratulations on linking 3 misinformed links for us to dismiss with disdain.

Xbitlabs, well they are what they are and basically find whatever will get them hits, lets not also pass on the fact that the benches were clearly photoshoped looks more like a mobile Trinity. I like how they link a server roadmap and talk about the absence of mainstream system parts....well like no $@#T

 

[juanrga]

4.5ghz 3930k is around 70% faster and fyi it probably takes similar power when i7 is oc'd. At stock the 3960x takes 62w less then the fx9590.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-17.html

Whats more impressive is the i7 4770k with its igpu stressed to the limit takes 101w and has at stock similar performance to the fx9590 that takes 248w without much headroom for overclocking.

You just don't get it do you? Seriously were you dropped on your head repeatedly as a child? No one on this forum cares about performance per watt. I would wager that everyone here, except for yourself, lives in an area where power is plentiful and cheap. The FX-9590 is an enthusiast processor period. You have to have a serious psu, motherboard combo to even run it. Yes it uses a lot more juice to run it, but enthusiast don't really give a hoot in hell about power consumption, all they care about is performance plain and simple.

As far as the i7 4770K goes the FX-9590 has better performance at stock than the Hasfail chip. The only place where the i7 4770K can beat the FX-9590 is single core performance as expected (and it doesn't get beaten by much). Multi-core performance the i7-4770K is beat plain and simple. Furthermore what make the Hasfail chip Hasfail is the fact that when it comes to overclocking the i7 4770K doesn't have much "headroom" either as they get too hot and don't overclock well at all. With a top end motherboard (Asus) and proper cooling I'm sure the FX-9590 can get higher clock than 5.2GHz.

More importantly you add on another 15-30% increase in performance for Steamroller FX the Hasfail chip is beaten across the board (except in power consumption).

+1

lol, I seen arrandale laptop score score like 4000 with a decent ssd. as its nothing really to do with the cpu as long as the disk drive performs the best and the cpu and memory can feed it but it doesn't stress the cpu much at all. The amount of iops the ssd has is mainly known for the performance as that way its faster TPS.

cowboy44mag: You say hasfail when haswell is intels biggest innovation in last decade in all aspects of the chip.

AMD steamroller has to improve about 100% extra performance and perform 2x better performance per watt to get to haswell levels, thats why I mention power. Haswell 8 core 130w tdp cpu will be out next year and because amd is no competition expect enthisiasts to get it.

edit:fx9590 doesn't beat out the 4770k on multithreaded performance they are about similar. One more thing that cpu is not ecven worth £300, £250 would have been how much it should cost. The 5ghz cpu single core performance is still very slow.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-6.html

TROLLING ALGORITHM:

while ( 3 > 1 )
{
  post nonsense;
  ignore corrections;
}

 

[juanrga]

It's failure because people were waiting for Tock like Sandy Bridge. It's good step forward, but not revolution.

Looks like Steamroller will make AMD more competetive, but still they have long way to go.

Haswell is a failure because Intel promised 10-15% performance improvement and people is obtaining 5-8%.

It is a failure because in some cases Haswell is slower than the chip that is replacing (I already gave you one example with 4770k slower than 3770k and 4670k slower than 3570k).

It is a failure because often consumes more power.

It is a failure because has usb issues.

It is a failure because requires a new mobo and compatible PSU.

It is failure because runs hotter, even dangerously hotter.

It is a failure because OC poor.

It is a failure because OEMs are massively rejecting GT3e and using dGUs

 

[juanrga]

The i7 3960x already beats piledriver around 50% so improving 20-30% doesn't make it neck and neck. Since sandy bridge intel improved like 15-20% ipc wise to haswell. So at best amd might get to sandy bridge levels ipc wise but not efficiency.

12%

27%
http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1305170-UT-LLVMCLANG75&sha=8b7a7ca&p=2

And the 9590 is a 15-18% faster than 8350.

 

[noob2222]

According to this its not that impressive.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130702235056_AMD_Kaveri_Engineering_Sample_Found_in_Cosmology_Research_Database.html

There's something wrong with that ES or tests. It's even lower than similar Piledrivers.

An occasional search for various microprocessor models by DresdenBoy revealed quad-core AMD Eng Sample: 2M186092H4467_23/18/12/05_1304 [Family 21 Model 48 Stepping 0] in Cosmology at Home database. It is believed that the chip runs at 1.80GHz default clock-speed, has 2.30GHz Turbo Core frequency and features code-named Spectre graphics processing engine operating at 500MHz clock-rate. The chip is believed to have 35W thermal design power.

The test system was only used once on March 19, 2013. Given the fact that the chip was an early sample based on stepping 0, it is hard to say whether Kaveri suffers from inability to run at high clock-rates, or is simply clocked at moderate frequencies in order to maintain stability.

Potentially problematic situation, given how BD has to be clocked about a GHz faster then IB to be competitive. VERY early in the game though, so I'm not reading too much into this...so far. Worth watching going forward though.

Look at this: http://cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=187467
Divide by 2 or 3 and it's still much higher than Kaveri. Definitely that ES is screwed.

C@H supports cuda so your looking at cpu+gpu. the ES doesn't even show gpu so its cpu only.

Coprocessors: NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (1024MB) driver: 31106
vs
____________

 

[szatkus]

It's failure because people were waiting for Tock like Sandy Bridge. It's good step forward, but not revolution.

Looks like Steamroller will make AMD more competetive, but still they have long way to go.

Haswell is a failure because Intel promised 10-15% performance improvement and people is obtaining 5-8%.

Intel promised 10% and it actually is 7-12% better.

It is a failure because in some cases Haswell is slower than the chip that is replacing (I already gave you one example with 4770k slower than 3770k and 4670k slower than 3570k).

In almost most cases Haswell is faster than Ivy.

It is a failure because often consumes more power.

Slightly more power.

It is a failure because has usb issues.

You're right with that one.

It is a failure because requires a new mobo and compatible PSU.

Haswell is only good upgrade for people with Nehalem or lower, so even if they bought IB they would buy a new mobo.
And no, Haswell doesn't require compatible PSU.

It is failure because runs hotter, even dangerously hotter.

Any exploding Haswell?

It is a failure because OC poor.

Being slightly faster on max OC than Ivy Bridge on max OC.

It is a failure because OEMs are massively rejecting GT3e and using dGUs

Haswell iGPU sucks only little less than Ivy Bridge, except HD 5200 which is actually good for ultrabooks (and only ultrabooks).

 

[szatkus]

C@H supports cuda so your looking at cpu+gpu. the ES doesn't even show gpu so its cpu only.

Coprocessors: NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (1024MB) driver: 31106
vs
____________

I don't think it measures CUDA performance. Even if integer score wouldn't be affected by CUDA. Those results are just useless.

 

[noob2222]

juangra if haswell is a failure then what is piledriver and bulldozer, junk?

Its amazing intel can improve so much from ivy bridge to haswell, especially igpu and low power idles good if you use a laptop as its the first battery life improvement since the pentium m cpus were out 10 years ago. AMD biggest weapon to troll was the graphics of intels and now they can't. AMD are panicking now with haswell more then before as a 22nm igpu not only is more power efficient but provides similar performance to there power hungry apus gpu wise. Intel don't need to improve the performance, they already have the advantage they are going to make use of it with 8 core and 6 core chips. For the average user intels 4 cores are more then enough anyway.

what did they improve sooo much? idle power ... please ...

IGP ... rofl, not the same chip as your beloved low idle power. Iris pulls more power than ivy at idle and esp at load. Sure, Iris improved gpu speed, but at the cost of your super low power claim to fame.

go away, your completely useless.

You post nothing but drivel about Intel thats not even true unless you change the comparison for each individual arguement.

Another thing I tested the other day is an arrandale i3 330m and it took like 44-50w from the socket at 100% cpu task.

you have a cpu socket power tester ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

 

[noob2222]

C@H supports cuda so your looking at cpu+gpu. the ES doesn't even show gpu so its cpu only.

Coprocessors: NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (1024MB) driver: 31106
vs
____________

I don't think it measures CUDA performance. Even if integer score wouldn't be affected by CUDA. Those results are just useless.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3658v1

http://usa.lanex.com/?page_id=128

to get an idea of what your comparing, you need to find an a8 3400m or 3500m, and not a 4100fx running at ??? speed.

 

[szatkus]

C@H supports cuda so your looking at cpu+gpu. the ES doesn't even show gpu so its cpu only.

Coprocessors: NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (1024MB) driver: 31106
vs
____________

I don't think it measures CUDA performance. Even if integer score wouldn't be affected by CUDA. Those results are just useless.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3658v1

http://usa.lanex.com/?page_id=128

to get an idea of what your comparing, you need to find an a8 3400m or 3500m, and not a 4100fx running at ??? speed.

Why are you trying to argue? If you think these results are ok then try to estimate Steamroller performance growth basing on it.
For me it's just bugged ES.

 

[noob2222]

the es may or may not be correct, you need a similar pd cpu to compare it to. 4100fx is not even remotely similar.

es numbers by itself are meaningless without a proper comparison point. But the point I was making is that C@H supports both nvidia and ati gpu acceleration. the ES doesn't show any gpu acceleration.

aside from that, the stats themselves may not have even been running on all 4 cores.

How Cosmology@Home will use your computer
When you run Cosmology@Home on your computer, it will use part of the computer's CPU power, disk space, and network bandwidth. You can control how much of your resources are used by Cosmology@Home, and when it uses them.

that doesn't mean it was a bugged ES,the data incomplete and meaningless by itself. C@H isn't a benchmark unless you know the system in question was running at 100%.

As others have said, this C@H is nothing more than trying to get web counter hits.

 

[gamerk316]

Just going to point out: For this entire power debate, are you talking CPU power draw, or PLATFORM (CPU + IGP + Mobo) power draw?

Two totally different things. Does Haswell on a barebones platform become much more power efficient compared to PD on a barebones platform? Has anyone ever bothered to figure that out before arguing over the CPU's themselves?

 

[szatkus]

the es may or may not be correct, you need a similar pd cpu to compare it to. 4100fx is not even remotely similar.

es numbers by itself are meaningless without a proper comparison point. But the point I was making is that C@H supports both nvidia and ati gpu acceleration. the ES doesn't show any gpu acceleration.

aside from that, the stats themselves may not have even been running on all 4 cores.

How Cosmology@Home will use your computer
When you run Cosmology@Home on your computer, it will use part of the computer's CPU power, disk space, and network bandwidth. You can control how much of your resources are used by Cosmology@Home, and when it uses them.

that doesn't mean it was a bugged ES,the data incomplete and meaningless by itself. C@H isn't a benchmark unless you know the system in question was running at 100%.

Actually Boinc has built-in CPU benchmark. It's simple Dhrystone and Whetstone.

http://www.realredraider.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=3321

Looks like it's single thread.

 

[Cazalan]

Stop feeding the Trolls

 

[juanrga]

I am on about actual cpu performance. Look here the i7 3960x blows the fx9590 away. Even at stock it would. The i7 4770k 3770k or 2600k is the fx9590 competitor and we all know how if you oc these cpus past 3.5ghz it will destroy the fx9590 which is already at the limit.
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/14/

edit: If you compare 32nm vs 32nm the i7 2700k vs the fx9590 is what you should be looking at as thats its performance category and we all know how well sandy bridge can oc and at 5ghz it will destroy the fx9590 and spit it out for breakfast.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/25/

I am on about actual cpu performance. Look here the i7 3960x blows the fx9590 away. Even at stock it would. The i7 4770k 3770k or 2600k is the fx9590 competitor and we all know how if you oc these cpus past 3.5ghz it will destroy the fx9590 which is already at the limit.
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/14/

edit: If you compare 32nm vs 32nm the i7 2700k vs the fx9590 is what you should be looking at as thats its performance category and we all know how well sandy bridge can oc and at 5ghz it will destroy the fx9590 and eat it for breakfast.

3960x takes 213w stock.
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/25/

TROLLING ALGORITHM:

while ( 3 > 1 )
{
  post nonsense;
  ignore corrections;
}

 

[juanrga]

It's failure because people were waiting for Tock like Sandy Bridge. It's good step forward, but not revolution.

Looks like Steamroller will make AMD more competetive, but still they have long way to go.

Haswell is a failure because Intel promised 10-15% performance improvement and people is obtaining 5-8%.

Intel promised 10% and it actually is 7-12% better.

Promised 10-15% and people is obtaining 5-8%.

It is a failure because in some cases Haswell is slower than the chip that is replacing (I already gave you one example with 4770k slower than 3770k and 4670k slower than 3570k).

In almost most cases Haswell is faster than Ivy.

In almost all cases the difference in performance is almost unnoticeable.

It is a failure because often consumes more power.

Slightly more power.

Enough to compensate the performance boost, giving the same efficiency than Ivy Bridge.

It is a failure because has usb issues.

You're right with that one.

It is a failure because requires a new mobo and compatible PSU.

Haswell is only good upgrade for people with Nehalem or lower, so even if they bought IB they would buy a new mobo.
And no, Haswell doesn't require compatible PSU.

That people would update to Ivy. If you don't use Haswell compatible PSU then you lose the new idle states, adding another reason to prefer Ivy.

It is failure because runs hotter, even dangerously hotter.

Any exploding Haswell?

Dangerously hooter to reduce the lifetime of the chip, whereas reducing performance due to throttling if the case is not extra-cooled. Ask Gigabyte about the problems that they are having with its SFF prototype.

It is a failure because OC poor.

Being slightly faster on max OC than Ivy Bridge on max OC.

The problem is that Ivy Bridge has more room for OC which means

Ivy Bridge OC >= Haswell OC

It is a failure because OEMs are massively rejecting GT3e and using dGUs

Haswell iGPU sucks only little less than Ivy Bridge, except HD 5200 which is actually good for ultrabooks (and only ultrabooks).

OEMs are massively rejecting Haswell iGPU and including a dGPU from Nvidia or AMD. OEMs are rejecting Iris Pro because it is slow, expensive, and power hungry than alternatives.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

LISTEN! I just looked at the past few pages I missed. For the past two pages, all that's been happening is trolling and spouting of the same information over and over again.

I know it may be "wrong" of me to jump in like this, but I do think this is a good thread, and even though it's seen better days, it does NOT deserve this BS.

Please stop trolling, using the same information to try to prove a point, and accusing each other of "Stupidity."

Honestly, the way everyone is talking here reminds me of You Tube tech comments where people are so dumb they don't even stand a chance in life.

 

[Krnt]

^ +1

Also I remember someone said here that if the Phenom II would have been shrunk to 32nm and made in an 8 core version would have the same performance as the 8350.

That made me calculate a theoretical arithmetical performance for that processor based on a Phenom II X4 @4Ghz, I know things don't work like that but that gives an idea, the processor would have had around 107 GOPS in a Sisoft sandra arithmetical test wich is a littlebit better than the, although there are a lot of factors that could affect the performance of a chip that big, I bet it would have power consumption and heat problems, and cache (L3 mainly) would need to be kept low to counter that, I think, the thing is how much different would that have been compared to our current situation.

Also that thing at 5 Ghz would have been a BEAST!

 

[cowboy44mag]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=697
krnt that was me. There are of course different stuff on the piledriver cpu architecturally but if you look at these benchmarks you could say a phenom 2 8 core would beat the fx8350, suprisingly enough phenom 2 cpus at same clock speed as piledriver it seems most likely the older cpu has better ipc and people think intel are not innovating. I think thats why intel must have been happy knowing amd have stood still for last 4 years in desktop market except a die shrink to 32nm while sandy bridge was so good the extreme line cpu was worth the prices as nothing like that is out in the market and it was for sure amd wouldn't bother intel competition wise while they sticked with bulldozer and piledriver. To be fair I don't think amd expected intel to innovate so much since the junk nehalem 45nm cpus came out, sandy bridge shocked me when the benchmarks came out especially the laptop cpus I remember reading the benchmarks in january 2011 and thinking wow. AMD need a wow type amazing cpu to get back in the game.

You just can't help yourself can you? You honestly can't go for more than a couple minutes without trolling. Its actually sad that you could truly believe the pure CRAP that you post. Seriously you need to get yourself a life and stop trolling about Intel and their "greatness" on an AMD thread.

 

[8350rocks]

lol, intel are so far ahead. 4 years ago it was close now its the biggest gap in the history between intel and amd. Piledriver and bulldozer are massive flops. AMD would have been better off downshrinking the older phenom 2 cpus to 32nm. I find it staggering how from 45nm core 2 series penryn cpus on laptops to ivy bridge 22nm cpus they have improved so much. I think sandy bridge took amd by suprise and since then intel haven't looked back and amd engineers are scratching there heads to wonder how intel are doing this.

Intel nehalem was a big flop but at 3ghz the i7 competes against the fx8350 and this is on 45nm. At 4ghz it should match the fx8350 as well.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/100?vs=697

Sandy bridge gigantically improved effiency and ipc and added igpu for i7's and took half power consumption to destroy nehalem cpus. Thats when amd were blown away.

I SAID KNOCK IT OFF ABOUT INTEL ALREADY!!!!

Now you get the wrath...I warned you:

Intel has constantly been trying to use under handed, unethical practices to cut AMD out of any and all business possible, see here:

http://www.dailytech.com/European+Commission+Fines+Intel+145B/article15124.htm

http://www.edn.com/electronics-news/4313130/Intel-faces-New-York-antitrust-lawsuit

AMD has won 2 separate lawsuits against Intel and was a co-litigator in a 3rd:

In 1992, a court awarded AMD $10 million because Intel used business practices which violated industry ethical standards and were anti-competitive.

In 2009, a court awarded AMD 1.25 billion because Intel was back to the same old shenanigans and the same laws were broken, yet again. Additionally, this case required Intel to remove it's "Genuine Intel" CPUID check from the ICC Compiler...which has still not been done to this day over 4 years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel

http://are.berkeley.edu/~sberto/AMDIntel.pdf

Intel has a history of providing biased benchmarks as part of their "propaganda" as it's come to be colloquially called among industry insiders...one such example is the recently unveiled AnTuTu benchmark scandal...that is but one of many.

Intel's process is Tri-Gate, which is a complicated process...but they use bulk wafers to produce it, instead of SOI. This means they must take a few extra steps in the production process (extra mask layers) in order to make the chips. This reduces yields, and results in an inferior quality of product with a greater variety of results seen in the capability of the CPU to achieve clockspeeds. This is why all of their Tri-Gate CPUs are a crap shoot for overclockers.

Intel has undertaken every possible endeavor to cheat their way through keeping their competition out of the race, and have been caught and called out numerous times the fact that there is anyone even willing to buy their products boggles my mind, as the company truly is the evil empire. They paid Dell computers $6 billion for them to not offer an AMD product in their PCs when the Athlon was a superior product to Intel in every possible way. There are several other examples of this with other manufacturers.

No amount of performance per watt discussion will change anyone in this thread's mind about what kind of company Intel is, and so you can kindly shut-up about Intel from this point forward. Keep your Intel rants to yourself, all you are doing here is racking up post count and driving up the number of pages of this thread because, frankly, you're really starting to irk the people who read this thread for productive information about AMD.

Now please...go do something else!!!

 

[-Fran-]

I took the easy exit. Hopefully action will be taken soon.

I can't believe I had to read almost 2 pages of trolling just to read... 0 news about Steamroller and 2 constructive posts in this sea of floating manure being posted (the bait and the baited, I might add).

STOP. FEEDING. THE. TROLL.

Cheers!

 

[8350rocks]

I took the easy exit. Hopefully action will be taken soon.

I can't believe I had to read almost 2 pages of trolling just to read... 0 news about Steamroller and 2 constructive posts in this sea of floating manure being posted (the bait and the baited, I might add).

STOP. FEEDING. THE. TROLL.

Cheers!

+11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

I took the easy exit. Hopefully action will be taken soon.

I can't believe I had to read almost 2 pages of trolling just to read... 0 news about Steamroller and 2 constructive posts in this sea of floating manure being posted (the bait and the baited, I might add).

STOP. FEEDING. THE. TROLL.

Cheers!

+11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

[strike]+8350[/strike] [strike]+9370[/strike] +9590