Friday, October 7th 2011
AMD FX 8120 Listed on Ukrainian Store
Less than a week ahead of its launch, a Ukrainian online store named Fixer started listing the AMD FX 8120 eight-core processor PIB (FD8120FRGUBOX). The store is listing the FX 8120 at 1791 UAH (US $223.5). According to the source, FX 8120 stocks arrived at Fixer's warehouse on the 5th of this month, and the product is listed since. The variant listed is the one with 95W TDP, there is a 125W TDP variant, too. It remains to be seen how the two variants spread across distribution channels. The FX 8120 is based on the Bulldozer micro-architecture, it features 8 cores, 16 MB total cache, and a nominal clock speed of 3.1 GHz (which can go up to 4 GHz with TurboCore). A worldwide launch of the AMD FX Processor family is expected on October 12.
Source:
Overclockers Ukraine
98 Comments on AMD FX 8120 Listed on Ukrainian Store
The numbers given are useless, really, as the code it runs will not be run often, but at the same time, the load placed on the memory subsystem can be used both to test it's efficiency, and it's stability.
I hear people all the time bitching about SuperPi...and clearly there's a great mis-understanding on what SuperPi is actually used for. In regards to efficiency, there is a "performance product", or calculation that can be made, based onteh result time, that can show if your system is running ideally or not. Not many other than extreme clockers from yesteryear will remember how people have been outted from posting fake clocks thanks to the "perforamcne product".
So I guess it can also be used to validate clocks, in a weird way.
It shouldn't be used to compare say, Intel to AMD, but comparing clocks from stock to an overclock, can be useful. The fact it's running x87 code is not important..that's CPU-side, and Spi is a MEMORY-focused benchmark, thanks to it's single-threaded nature.
D'oh, ninja'd
It's a tool "professionals" use to judge system performance, like how AIDA64's bandwidth test is used, but with a bit of error checking thrown in.
And while you feel it may not be useful to compare AMD and Intel, it's useful to show architectural differences that may or may not have an impact on performance. It shouldn't be used to say that if Intel completes Pi in half the time, it's twice as fast, but, it does highlight how contoroller differences can affect memory performance, but have little impact on daily usage.
Stop saying it's useless, and I'll stop explaining why you're wrong. I'm not saying at a personal level, you are wrong, but looking at the bigger picture, it's far from useless, and the comment about what code it runs highlights your lack of understanding the app as it's used by those "professionals".
:slap:
Anyway, none of this has much bearing on the launch and availability of BD chips. I guess this(as in the OP) kinda shows they are at least shipping...
My god, I hope they hit local tomorrow.
Previews don't count, official reviews do....
It appears that BD is actually slightly inferior to Phenom II in IPC rather than just on par (with the exception of new instructions, such as AES-NI, which obviously weren't present in Phenom II).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I wonder if seronx and DamnSt00pid will muster the testicular capacity to apologize for being such pricks when we pointed out the obvious to them.
@Dent1
www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-20.html
Who is mentally challenged now? Sorry but your posts look kind of challenged now. Still think the new AMD flagship is that great?
Can this be the reason why AMD got rid of Dirk Meyer? If Bulldozer needs a Windows 7 patch for it to perform much better, then why didn't AMD push for this patch to get completed B4 Bulldozer's launch? Anyhow I am lost with words.....
First off, your spelling is horrendous, there is no t,p,i or d in smooth.
I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong and I was wrong this time.
As for an apology, I don't think so. I'm not going to apologize when this could have turned out the other way. Nobody knew for sure and I just continuously had to point that out to you.
Good day.
It *couldn't* have turned out any other way for a very simple reason: I was merely quoting another man's statement. Had he been wrong in his estimate (which sounds extremely unlikely, given his position ...), it would have been his mistake in estimate to make, not mine. And as it turns out he was right (surprise, surprise).
Now *if* you indeed are man enough I'm sure you're going to manage to cough up something better than this sorry attempt at back-paddling. That, or good riddance :)