AMD Bulldozer Eng. Sample leaked, benched

[Dent1]

and you think e3 was a joke and it could be 100% fake i think your brain needs a reform here!

It's common knowledge that there was no Bulldozer benchmarks at E3.

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22996-amd-officially-announces-fx-brand
DOES THIS LOOKS FAKE TO YOU ?????


and this is a bonus news
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22997-amds-zambezi-up-and-running-at-e3

The first link says that AMD are bringing back the FX name. This has nothing to do with Bulldozers performance or that potentially fake prototype review.

The second link says Bulldozer was demonstrated at E3. This has nothing to do with Bulldozers performance as no benchmarks were tested at E3. Again nothing to do with the potentially fake prototype Bulldozer review.

Try again. But this time READ the links before you post such sillyness.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

and i dont see your getting the idea here! when intel made benches from their prototype they should promising results and so did amd in the past and now you all are talking about an AMD not finalized so y they did those benches anyway ? even the x6 is slower then intel quads, clearly i dont see a point mentioning a prototype and the the real thing is there! lol they didn't showed benches cause they know its slow hehe atleast from intel's extreme i7......if you dig in more you can actually consider the lga2011 platform with quad channel memory support x79 chip and running 8core processors then where would be this BULLDOZER be going ? x6 is slower then intel quad then what can be actually expected from an 8cored one

Now that you've proven that you're incapable of reaching the level of troll, you will forever be known as a lawn gnome.

Let me explain this to you. IF those benches are real, AMD did not approve of them being released. They would be from a chip that was never supposed to reach consumer hands. That chip would have been sent out to motherboard makers to test for compatibility issues at best and it was definitely not the same chip that they were using to demo at E3.

well come visit Pakistan if you got a problem, you would'nt dare so and you think e3 was a joke and it could be 100% fake i think your brain needs a reform here! if the x6 is slow the x8 might not be the best thats a forecast, if your obsessed with something slower then intel live up as you like mate

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22996-amd-officially-announces-fx-brand
DOES THIS LOOKS FAKE TO YOU ?????


and this is a bonus news
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22997-amds-zambezi-up-and-running-at-e3

So you are an internet tough guy, that links to articles that in no way back up any of the claims you're trying to make. Seriously man, you are making this too easy.

The truth of the matter is that nobody knows how Bulldozer will perform, and these supposed leaked benches of a gimped chip do not change that fact one bit.

 

[erocker]

Unless you have a chip in your hand or on your motherboard you're all wrong.

Seriously, who's more mature, the guy making the claim or the guy pointing fingers saying "No, no, no!"? Both things are fun to do but pointless in the end. I'm going to go give the finger to a blind man and yell at a deaf man now. Y'all behave.

 

[cadaveca]

oh god STFU you have no idea what you are talking about

Neither do you, really, because if you had a sample, you'd not be able to say as much as you have.


I recall the 2900XT...PhenomI, PhenomII, 5-series, and 6-series...basically everything that has launched since AMD bought ATI, has had early benches leaked "from china" that were disappointing, and every time, they basically turned out to be true.

Now, the thing is, is that the shown memory performance has been abysmal. This is specifically the area of performance I will be judging Bulldozer on. IPC, etc, doesn't matter to me, because it's good enough already with current cores. I don't need any increase here, just the same as Deneb or Thuban will do.

But I don't see any of that in the benches. I see apps that have specific extensions being highly accelerated, and the rest...well...I dunno.

Maybe it's possible that AMD sent out cores with an older IMC, due to consumer demand for backward compatibility with sockets, but I also directly asked JF-AMD if a new socket was require to get full performance outta Bulldozer.

He said yes.

I don't see many people with new 9-series boards. In fact, I think I have more boards than anyone else that doesn't work @ an OEM.

But I have no chips.

Based on board design...am I hopeful? Yes.

But do I really expect Bulldozer to be any faster than these benches? NOPE. History says I shouldn't.


I just have to hope that AMD will send me a sample. If not, my job here requires that I buy one...ASAP. So I don't care which way it goes...I just hope I'm not paying more, for less, with Bulldozer, like I did with this 1100T I'm using for reviews now.

 

[Thatguy]

Neither do you, really, because if you had a sample, you'd not be able to say as much as you have.


I recall the 2900XT...PhenomI, PhenomII, 5-series, and 6-series...basically everything that has launched since AMD bought ATI, has had early benches leaked "from china" that were disappointing, and every time, they basically turned out to be true.

Now, the thing is, is that the shown memory performance has been abysmal. This is specifically the area of performance I will be judging Bulldozer on. IPC, etc, doesn't matter to me, because it's good enough already with current cores. I don't need any increase here, just the same as Deneb or Thuban will do.

But I don't see any of that in the benches. I see apps that have specific extensions being highly accelerated, and the rest...well...I dunno.

Maybe it's possible that AMD sent out cores with an older IMC, due to consumer demand for backward compatibility with sockets, but I also directly asked JF-AMD if a new socket was require to get full performance outta Bulldozer.

He said yes.

I don't see many people with new 9-series boards. In fact, I think I have more boards than anyone else that doesn't work @ an OEM.

But I have no chips.

Based on board design...am I hopeful? Yes.

But do I really expect Bulldozer to be any faster than these benches? NOPE. History says I shouldn't.


I just have to hope that AMD will send me a sample. If not, my job here requires that I buy one...ASAP. So I don't care which way it goes...I just hope I'm not paying more, for less, with Bulldozer, like I did with this 1100T I'm using for reviews now.

JF-AMD has repeatdly siad memory controller throughput was to be nearly double thuban/phenom etc.

Also so has AMD.

I think they are enjoying all the free advertising and that is why they haven't leaked shit. Look at all the high end badass motherboards, if they don't have a killer product that makes no sense.

 

[cadaveca]

Look at all the high end badass motherboards, if they don't have a killer product that makes no sense.

Sure it does. Motherboards cater to a specific market segment. Being the motherboard reviewer means I kinda understand this more than anyone, as it is my job here. LuLz.

They want to sell boards to hardcore overclockers and gamers, and such users, so they have products that have all the features that crowd looks for. CPU performance has nothing to do with it. AMD and Intel says max mem for both current CPU platforms is DDR3 1333. Yet board makers hype DDR3 2133+ support on thier boards.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Neither do you, really, because if you had a sample, you'd not be able to say as much as you have.


I recall the 2900XT...PhenomI, PhenomII, 5-series, and 6-series...basically everything that has launched since AMD bought ATI, has had early benches leaked "from china" that were disappointing, and every time, they basically turned out to be true.

Now, the thing is, is that the shown memory performance has been abysmal. This is specifically the area of performance I will be judging Bulldozer on. IPC, etc, doesn't matter to me, because it's good enough already with current cores. I don't need any increase here, just the same as Deneb or Thuban will do.

But I don't see any of that in the benches. I see apps that have specific extensions being highly accelerated, and the rest...well...I dunno.

Maybe it's possible that AMD sent out cores with an older IMC, due to consumer demand for backward compatibility with sockets, but I also directly asked JF-AMD if a new socket was require to get full performance outta Bulldozer.

He said yes.

I don't see many people with new 9-series boards. In fact, I think I have more boards than anyone else that doesn't work @ an OEM.

But I have no chips.

Based on board design...am I hopeful? Yes.

But do I really expect Bulldozer to be any faster than these benches? NOPE. History says I shouldn't.


I just have to hope that AMD will send me a sample. If not, my job here requires that I buy one...ASAP. So I don't care which way it goes...I just hope I'm not paying more, for less, with Bulldozer, like I did with this 1100T I'm using for reviews now.

Ok, I see your point, but you are neglecting 2 issues here.

1st: We have seen supposed leaks from China that show Bulldozer being clearly better than Sandy Bridge, so why should these be any more credible?

2nd: The motherboard manufacturers didn't roll out their top of the line product for the Phenom II launch. They were still clearly below Intel's boards.

Now I'm not claiming that Bulldozer is going to be the greatest thing ever, but I'd be willing to bet that the finished product will produce better results than these "leaks".

 

[cdawall]

Neither do you, really, because if you had a sample, you'd not be able to say as much as you have.

all i have said is there are pstate issues with bios's same issues that have been seen by several other releases

what i do and don't have is none of your business to be quite honest. no one said i had a NDA chip.

 

[cadaveca]

all i have said is there are pstate issues with bios's same issues that have been seen by several other releases

what i do and don't have is none of your business to be quite honest. no one said i had a NDA chip.

LuLz. Drop the attitude, man, it serves no purpose. You posts in this thread allude to you knowing more.

pstate issues with bios's same issues that have been seen by several other releases

You cannot confirm nor deny any such issues. I can say, however, having boards in-hand, that there isn't any issues with current chips, while potentially there should be, given the new P-States that Bulldozer requires.

 

[cdawall]

LuLz. Drop the attitude, man, it serves no purpose.



You cannot confirm nor deny any such issues.

never said this one had pstate issues i said it was possible

 

[cadaveca]

never said this one had pstate issues i said it was possible

So? Big deal. It's also possible that there are no such issues. Posting info like that without a source, is exactly what erocker was talking about. We can back and forth all day long, but it serves no purpose as there are no official numbers, and anyone with a chip, cannot speak about it.

Yes, 9-series chipsets have a different VRM design, partialyl to support new P-States, that 8-series boards will not support.


So why bother even guessing?

 

[cdawall]

So? Big deal. It's also possible that there are no such issues. Posting info like that without a source, is exactly what erocker was talking about. We can back and forth all day long, but it serves no purpose as there are no official numbers, and anyone with a chip, cannot speak about it.

Yes, 9-series chipsets have a different VRM design, partialyl to support new P-States, that 8-series boards will not support.


So why bother even guessing?

not entirely true there are people who have them and chose not to speak. not every chip is NDA.

 

[cadaveca]

So? How does that help here?

Even if you personally had a chip, and no NDA, posting stuff like that, without something to back it up, serves no purpose.

Which is my point. Rumour discussion is kinda pointless. Let people think whatever they want, and official news will, in the end, confirm or deny, anything in this thread.

You cannot stand up and say "this is not true, but this is!", and neither can I.

 

[Heavy_MG]

well come visit Pakistan if you got a problem, you would'nt dare so and you think e3 was a joke and it could be 100% fake i think your brain needs a reform here! if the x6 is slow the x8 might not be the best thats a forecast, if your obsessed with something slower then intel live up as you like mate

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22996-amd-officially-announces-fx-brand
DOES THIS LOOKS FAKE TO YOU ?????


and this is a bonus news
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22997-amds-zambezi-up-and-running-at-e3

You realize you're bashing on something that is just a testing processor,or even fake?
Fudzilla,hahaha!
If you're saying the X6 is so slow,then what are you running?
I don't care what your silly useless intel biased benchmarks say,the Phenom II X6 isn't slow.

Let me explain this to you. IF those benches are real, AMD did not approve of them being released. They would be from a chip that was never supposed to reach consumer hands. That chip would have been sent out to motherboard makers to test for compatibility issues at best and it was definitely not the same chip that they were using to demo at E3.

The truth of the matter is that nobody knows how Bulldozer will perform, and these supposed leaked benches of a gimped chip do not change that fact one bit.

Thanks for pointing this out again. There's always someone who would rather ignore the facts and instead hate on it.

 

[user21]

Ok, so what's your point?

If Bulldozer was that bad as you want it to be, there would possibly be AMD acquisition underway because shareholders wanted to get some money out of it while they can...

... and recent price cuts on PII lineup would insta-kill Bulldozer.

It's true that Bulldozer is architecture for servers but it also means it's future proof for desktops.
Bulldozer is going at least for entry high-end with S2011 considered as launched for sure.
They still have Llano and Bobcat which both seems to get positive feedback from OEM's.

AMD doesn't need top performer to make money and increase their sales volume.

yes agreed here bulldozer might be an entry to high-end

 

[Heavy_MG]

all i see here is bunch of amd fans trying to deny the fact, like i said if x6 if slow then y not the x8 might be slower as past made a forecast ?

AMD fans? What? I don't even..... :shadedshu
The benchmark on this BD processor isn't any good because the chip used is an ENGINEERING SAMPLE. It is a first revision (B0 or B1) with bugs and many things locked off so actual benchmarks are not out before the final product release. How many times do I have to repeat myself?
Further revisions to the processor means a better chip with better results in testing.
Yet you still don't get it with your Intel fanboyish bashing and trolling.
You cannot use the X6 to make a assumption on the FX 8 core. This is a whole new architecture here. The Thuban X6's are by no means slow,either.

LOL dont want to show off but i made a system everytime there was something new

intel 915 with 3.8 ht
asus p5nd2-sli deluxe with 3.73 pentium Dx
asus p5qc with e8400
asus p6t with corei7 920
asus sabertooth p67 with core i5-2400

now STFU with your x6
rest is this see for your selves @all
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Ah,a diehard intel fan I see. The AMD Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 were much better than the Pentium 4 & Pentium D,as was Phenom for bang for the buck vs Core 2 duo.
Overclock your i5 2400...oh wait you can only raise the multi to turbo speeds.
Lol,that crappy intel biased benchmark site?

Judging by your grammar and lack of ability to make any point, I don't think you should run around calling anybody "IDIOTS".

The true fact of the matter is that if you think that AMD is actually going to spend all of this time and effort to release something that is slower than their current gen chips, you should probably get your head examined.

Once again, your trolling attempts are weak.

QFT. Why would AMD waste their time on a CPU that was worse than Phenom II? If this were so they would not even make announcements at E3 about the FX processor.
Haha,I though trolling was bad on some other forums but this stuff is indeed just weak.

 

[Heavy_MG]

lol a die hardfan ??????????????????? haahahahahahahahaahaahahaaaha i respect what has the potential, kept amd's when they use to kill the blues!
overclock my i5-2400 oh wait you forgot that it can be overclocked upto some limitation yet then it beat PHENOM X6 hahahahaha
see for yourself;
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/14

The only part I can make any sense of, is you saying that a 2nd gen core i5 is faster than a Phenom II. That's obvious you fanboy,newer tech is always faster,however a Phenom II X6 is still better in some things,so is 1st gen core i7.
Did you know a Phenom II at it's core is based on the Athlon 64? Yet it still keeps up quite well with a core i7.

 

[user21]

The only part I can make any sense of , is you saying that a 2nd gen core i5 is faster than a Phenom II. That's obvious you fanboy,however a Phenom II X6 is still better in some things,so is 1st gen core i7.

dude if i were a fan boy i had bought only extremes and 1st generation as well, i used amd when they had the potention over regular pentium 4 no the corners have changed if amd would rise up i'll buy one! like i said i respect what has the potential but if not "DUST"

 

[Mussels]

thread cleaned up. play nice or i'll take your toys away.

 

[user21]

thread cleaned up. play nice or i'll take your toys away.

 

[bucketface]

why are you all still dabting this??...
Lets just get this straight. The slides may or may not be indicative of the performance of an engineering sample from the bulldozer line. can we all agree on that?
i susupect that we are yet to see true performance figures.
eagerly awaiting benchies.

 

[Fatal]

So is this fake anyone know?
http://wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/amdbulldozer-1.jpg
If not thats not bad at all.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

So is this fake anyone know?
http://wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/amdbulldozer-1.jpg
If not thats not bad at all.

Yup, that one's fake. Gigabyte said so themselves.

 

[Fatal]

Alright thanks just saw that looking through the links.

 

[Thatguy]

Sure it does. Motherboards cater to a specific market segment. Being the motherboard reviewer means I kinda understand this more than anyone, as it is my job here. LuLz.

They want to sell boards to hardcore overclockers and gamers, and such users, so they have products that have all the features that crowd looks for. CPU performance has nothing to do with it. AMD and Intel says max mem for both current CPU platforms is DDR3 1333. Yet board makers hype DDR3 2133+ support on thier boards.

No it really doesn't make sense make a badass board for a overclocker to overclock if the cpu is a pile of shit. Whats the point in overclocking a turd ? its like hotrodding a honda, when you could start with a corvette instead.