They won't be as fast as people want. It's got less transisters per x86 core. Simple as that.

The 8170 released Q1 (supposedly) will be Octo with 3.9ghz clock and 4.5ghz Turbo and probably do 5ghz or better daily for extremists. I believe the new stepping will be C0 and should be a better all around cpu.

If AMD found a way for the actual module to act as a single core, it would be a fast cpu.

There's no way to make a module ( the term is compute unit, there's no module in any microprocessor engineering book ) appear/act as a single core.

Also expecting to see an eight-core FX working operate fully stable for 24/7 usage over 5GHz on air cooling is more than a daydream, and even if they ( let me enhance the dream ) could make BD like 10% faster with a revision [ simply impossible, just saying :D ] and even make them have a decent average air cooled overclock at approx 5.5GHz, it'd still not be enough to match the 2600K.

The K6 was a hot processor :D

10% is not that much. The last x86 (phenom II) architecture gained 10%. Why not this one?? C2 and C3. Big difference. Night and day actually.

__Cpu__Stp___stock___MaxTurbo
FX-8150 B2 3.6 GHz 4.2 GHz
FX-8170 C0 3.9 GHz 4.5 GHz

The above is only 60mhz shy of 10%.

I don't do the Intel vs AMD fyi. Already know i7 is faster.

Phenom II is not just a process revision of Phenom I.

Clock per clock ( better performance at the same frequency ) is nowhere to be found in almost every single core revision ever.
Core i7 920 C0 vs D0... clock both at the same frequency, and show me a difference in performance
Core 2 Quad Q6600 B3 vs G0... clock both at the same frequency and show me a difference ;)
...etc

Seems that their is 800 million less transistors than thought on Bulldozer.

source
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/21780/...ght/index.html

Allow me to doubt their new number.
1.2B transistors is unbelievable, especially with those huge caches.
Chip must be around 1.5-1.7B in reality ( looks like AMD thinks numbers aren't important [ transistor count, pricing, performance figures :P ] :P )

:rofl: AMD :rofl:

Has the x86 core changed in forever? Nope.....

Trinity should be released soon (APU) with a presumed up to and exceeding 20% performance increase over current A8 APU's.

Aren't the i7's APU based chips? Not just cpu's but also have IGP right?

How will these Trinity APU's compare to i7's? Is it all strictly about cpu performance? Or is a cpu worthless with garbage IGP?

JW cause I know very very little about Intel. It's beyond my budget capabilities.

Intel did this with NetBurst.... :thumbdown:

They have, but if you're spending 200$+ on a CPU, I believe you can afford a 70$ VGA which blows away the on-die ( inside the CPU ) graphics processor ( both Intel's and AMD's Llano ).

CPU-wise they suck balls.
Slow as hell.
GPU-wise the Trinity chips should be better even when compared to Ivy Bridge's i5/i7-3xxx LGA1155 on-die GPU ( unless Intel goes way above our expectations and current performance information )

CPU's with integrated graphics processors are good for HTPC ( Home Theater PCs ) and netbooks and entry-level laptops, that's just it.
Gaming + IGP = not getting along.

Funny, my son's rig is HTPC/Gaming blend on a 47" LG Flatscreen and I'm not having any issues at all.

When I had it for testing and benching, I happened to run Black Ops Zombies with it. Had not one issue and ran smoothly.

Just my experience so far with it. My son mostly plays TF2 and it's between 45-70FPS depending on map and player load, max settings max resolution on the 47".

I can produce picture proof if needed. But I think the AMD IGP's are a little tad under estimated.

Yeah most of the PCs in my house are IGP gamers, only one that cant is intels sandyB. the 3000 is a little smoother but the 2000 has issues with multimonitor and HD playback on one secreen and a game like freecell on the second :(

BUT: they are not playing COD/BF/ type of games. Harry potter/ Barbie types of games is what is normal. Wizard 101 with HD texture pack etc.

The APU's are good for like 22" and below and low res, but can play the newer games. I also tested the APU playing F3AR or Fear 3 if you will.

The 6 series IGP did surprisingly well. Blows away any other onboard IGP I've ever touched.

EDIT: Keep in mind I'm talking about stock, did even better when OC'ed ;)

Maximum details in which game ? And at what resolution ?
Forget about the first question, because it is granted that no IGP can handle any serious game ( Crysis 1/2, BFBC2, BF3, Assassins Creed, Hawx, Resident Evil 5, NFS Shift, anything... ) at maximum details even at just 1024x768.
Unless you consider 5fps minimum, 10fps avg, 12fps max playable framerates :P

What's an AMD ? Know I heard that acroynm a long time ago, maybe a decade or two? They were supposed to dominate something or other, can't remember what.

Oh, weren't they the main competitor of Cyrex? Weren't they the first one to put multi-media profiles on their chips. First in anti-virus too IIRC?. Or were they the ones that abused a licensing agreement to "invent" their own x86 compatible chips? Been so long ago, I get confused

Guess they dominated the brands who weren't going to survive, but? one must ask the question on whether or not this AMD thing had anything to do with their demise, or if it was Darwiniasm at it's best?

Had it not been the millions and billions of stars, wait - that's someone else, okay - if it had not been for the billions of dollars the courts ordered Intel to pay AMD, would AMD still be alive or would they have gone the way of Cyrex, Radio Shack, and all the other non-players?

Looking more and more that AMD, whatever it is, will survive as a niche player at best.

Oh well :D

Well I hope AMD still presses on, They have as good of chance at hitting something that works as well as something that doesn't

The new chip = FAIL for us but will see a lot of action in entry level laptops and desktops at the big box stores,

Maybe the next one will be good ............. :thumbsup:

My whole thing here is the lack of competition could bring a complacency to Intel and actually slow down progress as we are spoon fed small incremental bumps in performance to maximize Intels profitability :ohcrap:

Lets face it, in the GPU market dominated by nVidia, AMD is close enough to keep them honest and one slip means the preformance crown

This keeps the R & D at nV on their game and motivated.

I just wonder what will motivate the fatcat chip maker in the CPU arena

A lot of maybes in that thar post WD :rofl:

I <3 AMD.

then again when it comes to RC, I prefer brushless to nitro. Nitro might be faster but brushless has that instant snap that Intel err I mean nitro lacks :)

I suppose next time I get a chance, I'll slap in one of your suggested games and run it on the IGP and big screen. Most of those games are playable.

The Llano rig at my house here dedicates TWO gigs of Ram to the Gpu. That's more ram than most 70$ cards you'll purchase.

I see what you did there.;)

Crysis + 3850 stock Llano + IGP 6550D + 47" LG @ Med settings 1024x768 OR 1920 x 1080 on low. In a window @ 1024 it'll run High settings and is as large as my 22" monitor on the 47" TV and not using an HDMI cable either even though I should be.

Merry Christmas + Happy New Years btw!