Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Sep 13, 2011.
Your Trolling has been Diagrammed above (red text.)
If you want a philosophical discussion on what is truth there is generalnonsense, for the rest of the world in the "know" certain businesses and people are "known" to be truthful, so we take it as such until proven wrong. Casting unbased doubt on their character causes ruffled feathers and can unfortunately cause certain said people to stop sharing their feats.
I also believe there is something about useful posting, and the lack thereof known as flame-baiting, or thread crapping.
Yeah because if they can validate 8ghz there is NO WAY they can do 5ghz! THATS MADNESS! Oh and those Guinness World Record guys are noobs. They never validate anything.
I don't normally agree with Steevo. But when I do, I agree.
To epic to understand,
Stares at Avatar >.>
Ok lets start this then .
1. Higher IPC + We do not know how this performs in real world applications .
2. More cores , Ok it has 8 cores ( That is a start . ) .
3. It clocks like a mother Trucker . On One core ( or was it 2 cores ) Never the less NOT on ALL 8 cores for sure !
4. Just how is this going to help me in making a logical sensible buy on a product ?
5. They broke the world record . That is awesome ! Great job .
Am I flame baiting or thread crapping ? Or are you being a tad bit too over the top ? I want more information but it just ekks out of AMD . And I think that all the Fluff is not going to make me change my mind about this BD chip . I want more than a world record holding over clock chip .
hey I know exactly what will help you make a logical sensible buy on a product!!!
*epic echo voice* "Patience patience" and a positive attitude.
Best answer I can give.
I want to see bulldozer to, but in the mean time I have work and responsibility's
Yeah I have been patient for some time now . I am getting annoyed at AMD's Fluff fest ! Give me some meat not just the veggies !
1. I think you don't fully understand the meaning of IPC, good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle Good line:
Higher IPC + high clock translates in high performance
2. It has 4-6-8 cores, don't know why people get hooked on the 8 core and say it sucks for games (I don't mean you).
So my guess is it does quite well.
1) IPC, Instructions Per Clock. A defacto standard meaning if we compare A to B and both have the same frequency and A is faster or slower than B the resulting difference is a direct result of IPC efficiency. So, if we know that a competitive model has a 30% higher IPC on average than the previous Phenom II, and this has a roughly 15-20% increase in IPC we can guesstimate its clock performance.
2) Yep, 8 cores. Good job on locating that information.
3) Yep on two cores, and considering Intel did it with celerons, the lowest of the low dank and dirty chips they make, almost no cache to slow it down, and cherry picking. The equivlilant would be a athlon X2 or a single core under LN. But it is not, their premiere line clocks this high.
4) If you can't figure it out, again, this hardware is not the hardware you are looking for.
5) Exactly the point of the thread!!!!!!!! AMAZING!!!! On topic posting!!!!!!
I guess I'll just stop reading anything past the initial news post from now on.
Also, I'll be building a Bulldozer rig because AMD pulled off the most epic troll I have ever seen on TPU.
I guess you are right .
I haven't seen anybody try to explain why the Bulldozer chip was only running 2 cores. Easy! Less cores means higher clocks. They were going for maximum clock speed on any amount of cores, not just a ridiculous overclock on all 8 cores.
I had an i7 860 for a while but it ran too hot to keep on for more than a couple hours in my little hot bedroom. On 2 cores without hyperthreading, it would hit 4.5 GHz with chilled air without a problem. Stock with all 4 cores and HT, it would top out at about 4.1 GHz. Same thing applies to the FX overclock.
If these things are hitting 5+ easy on water, that's definitely nice. Something to look forwards to. Hitting 6 on water in 6 months? that'd be REAL nice even if it's only 5-10% faster per clock than current Phenom II's.
All we know is that it's quicker per clock cycle than Phenom II, has more cores, clocks better and this is all from silicon that isn't even up to par with retail silicon, just an engineering sample...so the clock speeds should get better once it releases, as well as us finally having performance numbers.
It was explained in this thread, and in the other thread that was stealth closed and not merged with this one.
WHoever said no proof (Steevo?)...been up since the release.
If I send you $20, can you go buy a thesaurus and look up a different word for fluff?
How about useless bullshit just to get your face out there ? This is like looking at a great stake , You look at it , It looks great it smells great but you can not have a taste so all you have is an empty hole that drools ! When you finally get to taste it it will be stale and unappealing . Why you are all so jacked up on some thing like this is beyond me other than the fact that the AMD fanboy ego got a stroking , All I see smoke and mirrors ! Fluff all over the internet of AMD this AMD that , not interesting to me .
It must be of some interest to you, you've made more posts in this thread than I have.
Yes you are right . I am done now good luck with your Chip !
Guys why so much stress on this thread
Its a world record... if you can break it, why not breaking it? its just good news. Intel breaks superpi records and its equally useless because its not a benchmark that represents general performance, but again, if you can break the record, why not?
some people may be unimpressed with this record because bulldozer was delayed so much, and because it doens't mean stability or performance, or a real product you can buy in a shop. But its ok to feel unimpressed. While its perfect to break a record. It depends in each soul out there how to take this news.
I mean, a guy could drive his testarrossa, and I wouldn't be impressed because I'm just not into cars.
I would have liked to see some results from the 5GHz benching they did but nooooooooo all we get is a whopping great 2 of 8 core suicide run OC result mmmmmm big deal doesn't mean squat to me...
notice not much was said at all about how it did at 5+GHz no temps no results from benchies way to peak interest AMD
LOL ! Another one !
yeah so what good O they got a WR OC still doesn't mean squat to the majority on here when they said they did multi threaded bench runs at 5+ GHz but fail to show us any of it... That is what we want to see
I look around the web to find the highest overclock speed score for Intel CPU (other than the Celeron score at 8.308) & find one on Youtube Intel 990X at 7.146ghz with all the six (6) cores enable
I guess if they use only 2 cores on the 990X like they did on Bulldozer they may have a good chance of beating the new WR of Bulldozer?
I can see lots of people busy (on the Intel side) trying to beat the WR , it should prove interesting in the weeks or months to come...
EDIT: Found all the highest scores on this link-->http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/
Looks like Celeron & P4 are/was really good at overclocking....lol!
Why all this fussing? The damn thing reached 8.429GHz I don't care how many cores it was utilizing. That is some fast shit
Well now that you don't have to have all cores enable to get the WR...
Maybe all the guys that do heavy overclocking should go back to it & use only one core on the cpu (mostly on AMD side)...
Me think i could probably do 5ghz on air with only 1 core enable , hmmm!...
Don't think. Do.
Separate names with a comma.