Jump to content

Sparky

Atomican
  • Content Count

    760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sparky

  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. 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.
  4. Great thanks, that was just the answer I was looking for.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Sparky

    Sword of the Stars II is out

    yeah the update is equally broken, but now broken in different places. Don't buy yet.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  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.
  16. okay. These numbers are not going to be totally comparable, most everything could be different however From the bulldozer above and phoronix's Llano A8-3850 review. This is what the test system look like AMD Fusion A8-3850: Processor: AMD A8-3850 APU with Radeon HD @ 2.90GHz (4 Cores), Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-A75M-UD2H, Chipset: AMD Device 1705, Memory: 4096MB, Disk: 60GB OCZ VERTEX2, Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 6550D 512MB (600/667MHz) AMD FX 8150, ASUS Sabertooth, 4096mb ram, wd 300gb Velociraptor, 8800GT. so the llano based platform had the advantage of an ssd. bench ---- a8 ------ BD -------------------------- C-Ray ---- 107.6 -- 51.07 - lower is better Smallpt --- 242 ---- 104 - lower is better 7-Zip ------ 9224 --- 18209 - higher is better OpenSSL -- 52.48 --- 68.68 - higher is better JohnTheRipper - 842 - 954 - higher is better
  17. This might be of some interest then. http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1110131-LI-BULLDOZER29 Link was taken from Phoronix. anyone got an X6 out there thats similar to that system so we can get a comparo.
  18. It would be a massive undertaking for AMD to do this. especially since TSMC does not have a 32nm node, only 28nm and 40nm. 28nm is having issues - as we see from not having either new amd or nvidia gps's. A bulldozer on a 40nm node would be quite possibly the biggest chip ever produced. Also I hear that CPU designs don't work well on half node processes. Being that the parent of a 40nm is a 45nm process then you could say that really you would be building it on a 45nm process. If that's the case then might as well run it through GloFo's 45nm node. And in that case Thuban is 904M transistors with a die of 346mm2, bulldozer is aparently around 2 billion transistors - I really don't want to think how big that would be! I think this is more to light a fire under GloFo's arse than anything else. I could see AMD taking their CPU business to IBM before they would go to TSMC. I know that if I was Rory Read right now, I'd be kicking down GloFo's door and smashing heads against walls.
  19. Although it would explain both the massive transistor count and the high power consumption if a GPU that they never got working was still hiding in the die. I don't expect that is true, but it is something to think about. Have we seen a bulldozer die shot? Remembering back to the start of all this AMD had big hopes for the APU. I imagine that the first bulldozer design probably was an apu. but time may have changed that. Anyway we will see trinity with piledriver cores soon, that will give us a significant idea about what the next 8 core chip will be like.
  20. Well just done some research and there was 1 year 1 month and 12 days between Phenom and Phenom II. So if we see the same turn around here then pencil in early December 2012 in the calendar. Not say ing it will be a repeat, but thats how long it took them to turn fail into success last time. Of course to go from the terrible stuff up phemon B2 to the fixed up phenom B3 took 4 moths 8 days. So maybe AMD will give us some love for valentines day next year. and in terms of what I'd like to see from a bd review. Grab k10stats (if it works on bd) drop voltages, pump the stock and turbo clocks as far as they will go on stock clocks and see where everything really falls on power consumption. From my perspective if power consumption was more reasonable and the clocks were around 4.4ghz stock then it would have been a damn nice chip. So maybe they can do a phenom B2/B3 fix and have us something nice in 4 months. Or maybe the problems are deeper and call for a more phenom to phenom II fix and the time required to do that.
  21. Gentleman perhaps we should direct our misplaced hostility at a more appropriate source...... AMD. The disappointment of this is enough to make me buy a geforce as my next gpu upgrade just to punish them for all the screwing around they have done. :P Piledriver might be an option for those already on the am3+ platform, but really who here is going to buy a piledriver and a expensive mobo, just to watch a new amd platform arrive a little while later (if its not delayed). We know piledriver based cores will be the last AM3+ cpu's, we also know that DDR4 is on it way. with both of those changes coming would you really buy into it? This is the disappointment of having to follow my recommendations to two friends who ended up with 2600K and 2500K respectively. And I really did want to go AMD this time around. ergh. I just looked at AMD's share price - Yuk!
  22. Well, I'll admit freely that I never expected an 8 core processor to be competitive on a power front. But i really did think the one big FPU design was going to thoroughly trounce one of intels FPU's. but instead it bearly beats a phenom II x6. Think about it like this, AMD was throwing essentially what should compete against an i3 in a single module but instead of there being two fpu's they were going to have one that could be entirely allocated to either 'core'. To me this smelled like a monster gaming/single threaded cpu. But it all went the other way. It has what amounts to half an FPU. It's a Pentium 4! Not that northwood was not a good chip, but it came from an obviously flawed concept. That was easily seen when benchmarks of a 1.86ghz cut down conroe (allen-something damn!) showed up giving a p4 3.74ghz a run for its money. I really hope bulldozer architecture is not this flawed. Now I'm stuck as to where I upgrade to. I'm running an e7400, and even though its a beast of an e7400 (its over clocked to 4ghz while still running stock volts and has speedstep still on) it's time for an upgrade. This late in the game I think I'll just keep waiting and see what happens with the 2700K and prices on the 2600k after its release. Sandy-E is also a possiblity since its coming soon aswell, but intel is probably revising its prises on Sandy-E in the north direction as we speak considering they know how far away bulldozer is on performance. The positives are that its real and its a base for AMD to build off. It just makes me wonder where the gutsy bastards that made the Athlon are now.
  23. Sparky

    Overclocking my GTX260

    They were actually up to Arctic Silver 5. but video cards being a little more difficult of an application your better off going for Ceramique 2. I've only used Ceramique 1 myself but its easier to apply than silver and you don't have the conductivity concerns of silver.
  24. Judging from the size of the processor to the box, the box is not that small. so how bloody massive is that belt buckle, if its similarly sized to the box. I guess that belt buckle would match perfectly with the atomic tee shirt.
  25. so 3am october 13 for us, I think. Lets hope it happens this time.
×