So Im assuming the 2550/2650 would be a new stepping/new batch, where as the 2700 K are just a rare batch of 2600Ks. I guess your guaranteed it runs at 3.5GHz vs a 2600 or 2500K. Overclocking is always a mixed bag.


Im not sure where the 8150 is going but I truly suspect the Product isnt as bad as everyone thinks it is- I really think it was just a direct move of the opteron to the desktop market- its probably the fact the CPU isnt working hardly to pass its tasks through- only time will tell and that of Piledriver arch...

On Another Note- as a Computer enthusiast- I built a Phenom 2 BE 555 machine for my bro, Unlocked the CPU to B55/955 using stock cooler. Amazed at how fast it boots, shuts down and loads programs and how smooth it operates in videos and audio with a 6770 video card- my bro just recently upgrade the driver because the driver itself asked if he wanted to, so now he is on the Cat 11.11/ 11.12 vs the 11.9 driver i installed initially


At Work Im helping my boss on building a machine by providing 1155/ 2011 or AM3+ parts- as of looking at reviews and specs etc- fit his budget like my brothers machine- so far the AsRock boards look the best for robustness and capability at overclocking (doubt he will overclock tbh)

John DoeFirst of all, [H]'s article is extensive and one of the best out there. And if you look at "average", Sandy has almost double the frames. Not just in ARMA, but in some other titles as well. You also have to consider that these (games in test) are well threaded.

I would choose someone other than [H] who has gotten trouble in the past for being heavily Intel/Nvidia biased and making the benchmarks read as such.

This.. This is a bit ouchy. :(

eidairaman1So Im assuming the 2550/2650 would be a new stepping/new batch, where as the 2700 K are just a rare batch of 2600Ks. I guess your guaranteed it runs at 3.5GHz vs a 2600 or 2500K. Overclocking is always a mixed bag.

Yeah, they might have improved their batch but I'm starting to think they're doing it on purpose, because the early 2600K's OC'ed better than the later ones. They might just keep the good 2500/2600k's to re-release them under a different name...

John DoeYeah, they might have improved their batch but I'm starting to think they're doing it on purpose, because the early 2600K's OC'ed better than the later ones. They might just keep the good 2500/2600k's to re-release them under a different name...

Seems to be the way of the beast- reminds me of what AMD did to the XP 3200 after the Athlon 64s came out- locked the multiplier down...

But both companies have done that to phase out models, eventually the 2550K and 2650K will appear and the 00 models will phase out then a 2800/2750 K appears along side the 2*50 series etc.

eidairaman1Seems to be the way of the beast- reminds me of what AMD did to the XP 3200 after the Athlon 64s came out- locked the multiplier down...

Way off topic, the locked ones had green PCB, right? The earlier dated ones were red IIRC. :D

John DoeWay off topic, the locked ones had green PCB, right? The earlier dated ones were red IIRC. :D

You couldnt tell by the color of the package- it was in the stepping code- if it was week 39 or higher in 2003 the CPU was multiplier locked.

Ive seen Green, Yellow and Brown Packages that were before week 39, just depended on where the chip was made, the Brown ones were Germany. Biggest guarantee of the Athlon XPs not being locked were the stepping code before week 39 or the Athlon XP-M, Highest I can go is 2.2GHz with the XP-M. Others that have been lucky have pushed the farthest at 3.0GHz.

eidairaman1You couldnt tell by the color of the package- it was in the stepping code- if it was week 39 or higher in 2003 the CPU was multiplier locked.

Ive seen Green, Yellow and Brown Packages that were before week 39, just depended on where the chip was made, the Brown ones were Germany. Biggest guarantee of the Athlon XPs not being locked were the stepping code before week 39 or the Athlon XP-M, Highest I can go is 2.2GHz with the XP-M. Others that have been lucky have pushed the farthest at 3.0GHz.

Board limited on the XP-M?

I had a mobile 2500+ that would only clock to 2.25Ghz because of a board limitation. I know it clocked higher because the guy I got it from confirmed it past 2.8.

NC37Board limited on the XP-M?

I had a mobile 2500+ that would only clock to 2.25Ghz because of a board limitation. I know it clocked higher because the guy I got it from confirmed it past 2.8.

That I couldnt tell tbh, cuz I have a DFI NF 2 Ultra-B

My first was a MSI K7N2 Delta-L

eidairaman1besides is the 2700K truly superior to the 2600K or 2500K other than just a model number change? I noticed Intel is to release a 2550K or 2650K shortly...

Both companies do this, I recall the top end Phenom 2 getting 100 mhz bumps consistently through its product line to "remain competitive". Release a slightly higher clocked version for at a slightly higher price point. Yes the performance between the two will be very similar the same way overclocking an extra 100 mhz would be the exact same thing.

Look at Phenom II X4 955 at 3.2ghz all the way up to 980 at 3.7 ghz in 100 mhz increments.

Most enthusiasts understand that the only thing changing here is the default multiplier, thus increasing temperatures and clock speed.

And Youre telling me this why when i already know AMD had been doing it:confused:

KenshaiBoth companies do this, I recall the top end Phenom 2 getting 100 mhz bumps consistently through its product line to "remain competitive". Release a slightly higher clocked version for at a slightly higher price point. Yes the performance between the two will be very similar the same way overclocking an extra 100 mhz would be the exact same thing.

Look at Phenom II X4 955 at 3.2ghz all the way up to 980 at 3.7 ghz in 100 mhz increments.

Most enthusiasts understand that the only thing changing here is the default multiplier, thus increasing temperatures and clock speed.

Last time i heard it was suppose to come in 2 updates. Using just first one actually hurts the performance.

eidairaman1And Youre telling me this why when i already know AMD had been doing it:confused:

Because you questioned whether the newer intel model numbers were superior. It's the same thing in the AMD line, are they actually superior? Expect this same thing to happen in all releases, as its competition that drives the new models out.

This will probably be a nice performance boost for those who have an FX.

Also, those who are saying that BD is good enough or that it isn't bad. Well its a bad chip, so many years of R&D went into it and in the end they ended up slower than Stars. And please don't start throwing those 2-3 benchamarks where it's faster than the 2600K or 2500K, it has double the amount of cores and uses much more power for that. Also an 8 core Phenom II would demolish it in anything, but such a chip will obviously never exist.
Of course in the end what matters is the price for the performance, be it a chip with 16 cores or 2 cores.


About this update, I saw some people with 2600k at the AT reporting that it gave them a boost in cinebench, someone should test it and see if this is true.

Maybe they should make a patch for the chip that has 800m transistors less lol.

repman244This will probably be a nice performance boost for those who have an FX.

Also, those who are saying that BD is good enough or that it isn't bad. Well its a bad chip, so many years of R&D went into it and in the end they ended up slower than Stars. And please don't start throwing those 2-3 benchamarks where it's faster than the 2600K or 2500K, it has double the amount of cores and uses much more power for that. Also an 8 core Phenom II would demolish it in anything, but such a chip will obviously never exist.
Of course in the end what matters is the price for the performance, be it a chip with 16 cores or 2 cores.


About this update, I saw some people with 2600k at the AT reporting that it gave them a boost in cinebench, someone should test it and see if this is true.

Um it doesnt have "double the amount of cores". Also the patch that was dropped was undone and third if BD goes 200 or less it would be an awesome chip for the price. I really don't know where you get your facts from.

Off topic.

John DoeTrolling? Is that what you get out of it? Take off your AMD shirt buddy, I post facts. And no, it has nothing to do with going with whatever brand. Brand fanboyism is stupid. I suggest people more AMD GPU's than nVidia (due their bang for buck). But not sure you're grown enough to realize that.

Not so sure buddy. When Btarunr posted an article from Donanimhaber that AMD were releasing the 79 series on the 9th you mocked the site. You argued with Btarunr about his sources and you said:

John DoeAll the author of DomainHamber does is to make up crap. That site is a joke. Why would they, from Silicon Valley, CA, send their most important info to some junk site from a 3rd World country? They never get any info. They just stir it up.

Btarunr posted this:

btarunrYes, at least insofar as where you were going with DonanimHaber is concered, you are one of those who proclaim: "My ignorance is as worthy as your intellect". Therefore, you don't deserve a discussion on DonanimHaber's credibility. Rather it's the otherway round, DonanimHaber doesn't need your stamp of approval.

You posted back:

John DoeYou first insulted me by saying I don't know shit. And know you're calling me dufus and ignorant? Way to go buddy. Way to go. I'm pretty damn sure you know that site has no inside sources. They're making it all up on their own. They always did. But you aren't going to come up and admit you're wrong. You aren't in a position to do that, are you?

Hmm.

So you'll probably say Donanimhaber were just lucky or that you didnt mean that they didnt have any info. You'll stick to your guns and say they only make shit up despite the fact the talked about an early Jan release date and lo and behold, other sites confimed this and then the date got moved even closer.

Why dont you apologise to Btarunr for being so rude to him?

That would be the civilised thing to do.

TheMailMan78Um it doesnt have "double the amount of cores". Also the patch that was dropped was undone and third if BD goes 200 or less it would be an awesome chip for the price. I really don't know where you get your facts from.

I know that the patch is not done I haven't said anything about it being done...

8 cores vs 4: it's double...and I don't care what you call them. An application that uses only one core will take that one core it doesn't care if it's some semi core.
Also I didn't say anything about the price of BD itself, I agree if priced correctly it's really a nice CPU, but I was looking at the architecture itself and I don't see it as efficient or good...for now that is. I hope that Piledriver delivers and shows what BD was meant to be.

repman244I know that the patch is not done I haven't said anything about it being done...

8 cores vs 4: it's double...and I don't care what you call them. An application that uses only one core will take that one core it doesn't care if it's some semi core.
Also I didn't say anything about the price of BD itself, I agree if priced correctly it's really a nice CPU, but I was looking at the architecture itself and I don't see it as efficient or good...for now that is. I hope that Piledriver delivers and shows what BD was meant to be.

Its not a true 8 core.

TheMailMan78Its not a true 8 core.

Like I said, applications don't care what it is. Neither do I, all I see is low single thread performance, it doesn't help me if I know what actually is in the CPU.

repman244And please don't start throwing those 2-3 benchamarks where it's faster than the 2600K or 2500K, it has double the amount of cores and uses much more power for that.

repman244Also an 8 core Phenom II would demolish it in anything, but such a chip will obviously never exist. Of course in the end what matters is the price for the performance, be it a chip with 16 cores or 2 cores.

Arguably, according to AMD's early marketing Bulldozer FX 8150 is really a 4 core proccessor, with 4 hardware HT :)

Why they decided to market it as an 8 core afterwards?? Only the peope in the board room knows. But they shot themselves in the foot with it.

repman244Like I said, applications don't care what it is. Neither do I, all I see is low single thread performance, it doesn't help me if I know what actually is in the CPU.

Well its your right to be wrong. Carry on.

Dent1Arguably, according to AMD's early marketing Bulldozer FX 8150 is really a 4 core proccessor, with 4 hardware HT :)

Yes, yes but lets not have facts get in the way of the Bulldozer bashing.

TheMailMan78Well its your right to be wrong. Carry on.



Yes, yes but lets not have facts get in the way of the Bulldozer bashing.

I'm not the application so I don't know how can I be wrong, or at least tell me where I'm wrong.

Even if you do call it a 4 module chip or 4 core chip with some sort of HT, it does not make a difference. It still lacks in the single thread applications, of course it does shine in heavy multithread.

Well I am sure AMD will have this fixed for you AMD users soon . Pulling the Hot Fix is a good thing as the performance is not there and working on it is the main thing now . But it would be nice for AMD to actually put out a chip that works with out a hot fix .

Can't really draw a conclusion based on a patch that was leaked then pulled. I'll wait till they release the finished product before making judgements, however I doubt there is a magic software fix for this.