Read more.Quote:
Sub-1W operation for notebook chips and massive scalability for desktop chips.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Sub-1W operation for notebook chips and massive scalability for desktop chips.
Do you think that bulldozer is going to be a new socket? I'm not really into the whole AMD scene XD
I used to be before they fell asleep behind the wheel.Quote:
Originally Posted by razer121
Perhaps now their injuries have healed they might have something to offer over the next few years, but after my Phenom experience I will not be joining in for a long time.
For someone not into it you've asked a very pertinent question.Quote:
Originally Posted by razer121
The simple answer, relating to the processor they're talking about at the moment, is no. The server chip works fine on the latest server socket/motherboard.
But the answer you're looking for is relating to the client(desktop) chip I expect, and they've not said anything either way about it, so we don't know. There is no mention so far of anything like interconnects or memory controller channels that would give us a clue either.
AMD hadn't changed the core chip design since the athlon 64. Now they have, so it's worth paying interest :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AGTDenton
Well i just wondered, the socket type has been around for a while now hasn't it? I've got to say im pretty intrested in this chip though...
I'd be shocked if it wasn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by razer121
50% extra performance from 33% extra cores sounds pretty pants.
Assuming their current 12 core beast has performance 100, or 8.333 per core. Then the Bulldozer will have 16 cores and 150 performance, or 9.375 per core. That's a whopping 12.5% increase per core... hardly amazing stuff.
But you're getting more cores for the same cost (both monetary and power-wise), so overall performance per watt per dollar is up 50%, which is amazing stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle
I'd be shocked if it wasn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by razer121
50% extra performance from 33% extra cores sounds pretty pants.
Assuming their current 12 core beast has performance 100, or 8.333 per core. Then the Bulldozer will have 16 cores and 150 performance, or 9.375 per core. That's a whopping 12.5% increase per core... hardly amazing stuff.
echo?
Does it really matter how much performance you get from each core though?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle
If you are getting 16 cores for the same price and power consumption as the previous 8 and the overall performance has jumper by 50% for the same class of processor (again, defined by the price and thermal performance) then that is a cracking jump :)
It's all about how you run the numbers really.
Now my words are echoing in funkstar's voice :p
Hmm, I need to look back at AMD really. No idea what socket means what or anything any more :( Interested to see how this all pans out though. Considering an upgrade soon and if these are cheaper and outperform i5/i7 then I may be interested.
Then you realise these cores are about 60% the size of Phenom II cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle
And yes, it's AM3 socket for desktop.
Not r2?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo75
another fundamental question, is it overclock-able? and also whats the performance like?
since the intels next arheticture doesnt look that promising to me as its not overclock-able and well doesnt have that much more performance gain
The server version is 50% faster than the previous top AMD server chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgy291
We don't know about overclockability, but no reason to think it's going to be bad.
We don't know either of those things. The k version chips are easy to overclock, and there are no performance figures so I'm not sure where you get the performance statement from.Quote:
since the intels next arheticture doesnt look that promising to me as its not overclock-able and well doesnt have that much more performance gain