Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Serf

About Sparky

  • Rank
  1. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chi...ss-chipset.html Listed in the diagram as a feature http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/publi...h-datasheet.pdf Page 53 of the PDF shows SRT as being a feature of z77 http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2653 Bottom of first page. A review showing a mSata port on the board designed for SRT. I thik its just an oversight on the page you were viewing, since it never explicitly stated that z77 does not do SRT and Z68 was at one time the only chipset that could do SRT so it reads perfectly fine before the 7 series chipsets arrival.
  2. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5728/intel-z...ecs-and-biostar The table states that Z77, H77 and Z68 support SRT.
  3. Great thanks, that was just the answer I was looking for.
  4. So how do I update this package? I don't care about the rest of the system just this one package. I'd prefer to stay with packages rather than compile the source myself, since this box is supposed to be an appliance managed from a web browser. Keeping it up to date is as simple as hitting go in a vnc window or ssh session.
  5. Sparky

    Sword of the Stars II is out

    Well they are staying true to their word. The updates are coming thick and fast. The game will now run fullscreen, the graphisc look like they are being rendered more cleanly. but the game still lacks a tutorial or much in the way of user friendliness. I'd say it's evolving nicely.
  6. Sparky

    Sword of the Stars II is out

    yeah the update is equally broken, but now broken in different places. Don't buy yet.
  7. Sparky

    Sword of the Stars II is out

    Sword of the Stars II is out. However they have accidentally dumped the beta release onto the steam servers. It's very broken. So don't buy it just yet.
  8. I'm not sure if you were commenting back agaisnt my post. however what i see in your post is the 'and most likely being boosted' phrase. Anandtech done a review on bulldozer and found its turbo core kicks in about 30% of the time with phenom x6's turbo core only kicks in about 5% of the time (or there abouts). It's night and day on turbo core performance. if llano's turbo core is good then that makes piledriver/trinity beating it by 20% all the more exciting.
  9. Well at the very least they must have fixed up a lot of bulldozers excess power usage since that is kind of frowned upon in a laptop. I know I prefer it when laptops last more than 15 minutes on a charge and don't melt in the process. As I said before if they are promising 20% - 50% (the number was 50%, but this slide says 20%, wish they would pick one) greater cpu performance from trinity and we have llano with 4 cores and trinity with 4 core, while the fight between zambezi and thuban was 8 vs 6 cores and they were even on performance. so for piledriver to be winning with the same amount of cores is a great step up. If it's not just AMD's hype machine in full action. of course they could just be playing coy and running their 20% number of of the slowest llano sku and not a comparable sku like they should be (and we expect). My biggest question about the validity of that statement is with how effective llano's turbo is, we saw in the anandtech bulldozer review that phenom x6 turbo was all but useless, while zambezi's version was quite effective. if llano's turbo is ineffective and the laptop clocks are around 1.5ghz then it could be quite easy for amd to offer 50% cpu performance than llano with effective turbo core.
  10. I'm sure there are many rhymes that can be made from Papermaster and piledriver. I'm not even going to try. I hope this works out well for them. I had a bit of a look at the Sparc T4 processor, it looks similar to a bulldozer design it's different of course (it is sparc afterall). difference is the final performance of the chip out done even what the engineers expected from it. so clearly the Bulldozer/Niagara type design can work. In my opinion power architecture is more potent for single threads than sparc designs. If Papermaster really is a god of Power based designs then maybe they can find a lot more single threaded performance in bulldozer.
  11. yes not to mention that trinity is going up against the same amount of cores in its predecessor, bulldozer only had to tackle 6 cores in a phenom X6 while have 8 of its own. Trinity and Llano both have 4 cores, and yes AMD have made a +50% statement. I'm going to guess they might be talking about turbo core here. Llano can hit 2.6ghz (I think it was) under turbo, with a slight deficit that would mean a current bulldozer core would need to be around 4.0Ghz. I cant see that happening. I'm getting the impression that some major improvements have happened with piledriver.
  12. phenom is a k10. phenom II is a k10.5 and i believe both are part of something called the 10h family but the 10h thing confuses me a bit. K9 was a never named processor that was apparently very very parallel AMD developed it to near completion before realising it would never achieve any kind of clock speed and the core size was so large as to relegate them to single core offering for the foreseeable future. But thats just something I read many years ago, AMD never confirmed or denied it so it could be nothing more than fud. Phenom came after that however. I do find it strange now that we can see what bulldozer is that they went from a remarkably wide single core proposed design to this shared resource multi-core design to replace their k series of processors. The phenom II seams to sit right in the middle. Change for the sake of it perhaps. Maybe some engineer somewhere just want their name on reinventing the wheel, and that's what they tried to do. I would not be surprised if Bulldozer starts to look more and more like a phenom II over time. Really Piledriver is going to answer a lot of questions I think. I would also suspect that when piledriver makes its way out the door that AMD will be more forthcoming with answers about bulldozers shortcomings.
  13. Don't forget that rumour of the aborted architecture before the rush to bring out k10. So a lot of dollars disappeared there. I really think for all the stuffing around they have done they could have designed a truely competitive Phenom III. And yeah while you say that AMD has enough trouble competing with only two competitors and so why go into ARM market, as somebody once said 'The best way to loose a fight is not to turn up' well AMD have finally shown up to this fight with bulldozer, and they showed up to the tablet fight with z01. The fact that AMD totally bypassed this bulldozer core for their Trinity project and went with stars and then piledriver tells me that they may have fixed a lot with the power consumption issues and clockspeed fail. They also say trinity will have 50% more cpu power than llano. llano in laptops runs at 1.4ghz so we are looking at the equivalent of a 2.1ghz phenom quad core. That's far from horrible. lets not dismiss the fact that both llano and trinity are built on the same manufacturing process, so there is not going to be a significant extra transistor budget here, trinity's graphics seem to be superior to llano's which probably means that it takes up more die area than llanos graphics. which in turn means that the piledriver CU's take up less space than the stars/husky cores they replace. As has been said above. We have gone the whole way from Pentium pro to Core i7 as an evolution and we have gone from k6? through to k10.5 as an evolution. Intel had their go at starting fresh with p4 and what did they end up with out of it. Faster memory controllers and a mean branch predictor. Which they then stuck back into a p3 to make a core 2 duo. As long as AMD can survive this then they may end up with a stronger processor on the other side of it. Really when you think of the evolution of these two cpu's and the fact that they were most similar through the p3 and athlon days. its no wonder new architectures don't work and the software is built for those processors. AMD probably would have been best of continuing the low core count phenom series for the desktop and the bulldozer series for the server space. but that would be too hard for AMD to maintain, it's obvious where AMD getting it profits from and they want to keep them in the server space.
  14. Where are these processors getting to on average these days. I believe the x6's are in the very low 4ghz range. As for the other two I don't know.
  15. I didn't post this earlier because there is nothing substantial in it. But I reconsidered, it a small but interesting read. One of the AMD Linux engineering systems for Trinity is running nicely even on Ubuntu 11.04 with the Linux 2.6.38 kernel. The CPU string is AMD Eng Sample 2M252057C4450_32/25/16_9900_609 and its graphics are the Trinity Devastator Mobile with 512MB of video memory and an AMD Pumori motherboard. The PCI ID on the Trinity Devastator appears to be 0x9900. This Trinity APU is quad-core and running at 2.50GHz. The current quad-core Llano offerings are clocked at 2.6GHz (A6-3650) and 2.9GHz (A8-3850), while this Trinity part is clocked slower, it's numbers are nice compared to my A8-3850 Linux system. Taken from http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=arti...early&num=1 So if this engineering sample has a 400mhz deficit and is quad core and getting similar numbers to a quad core stars. Then the 8 core version of it should be able to put considerable distance between itself and phenom X6 even at a lower clock speed. But we only know these numbers are 'nice'. I had a try to find them on the web in a cache. but could not, maybe someone who has more experience with hunting down cached pages can find the numbers.