Dan's Computer News Updates and Stuff...

[DanTheGamer11]

I wouldn't hold your breath

 

To all those that are taking about power consumption and battery life, its called AC power. if for whatever reason your going to game on a lappy 9/10 times its going to stay plugged into an outlet so yeah. and IF you are going to be away from a Outlet plenty of AM company's make plenty of power alternatives to get you from point A to point B till you can get to an outlet. and NO laptop is going to play Crysis or Metro for more then 3 hours on battery anyway. So get over it.

 

that may be laptops...even though the llano in the video did better...bulldozer performance is still unknow cause of the chipset issue

 

Why is everyone posting about laptops?

[DanTheGamer11]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110313163718_AMD_Aims_to_Fight_Core_i7_Sandy_Bridge_with_Bulldozer.html

 

interesting slide

[DnaAngel]

that may be laptops...even though the llano in the video did better...bulldozer performance is still unknown cause of the chipset issue

 

Why is everyone posting about laptops?

AS i posted earlier the Llano did better in your video because it was put up against a ENTRY LEVEL Sandy, either way you slice the cake both companies are dealing with 1st gen chip integrated Graphics which as always they will be mediocre until the tech is polished and refined. Until then 9/10 times a Gamer is going to apt for a Stand alone V Card or in a Lappy's case a mid to high end Graphics chip for their gaming needs. my last post was geared towards laptops because i read 2 pages of Laptop gripes and about needed a better v chip to make the lappy use less power and gain battery life. as far as the "bulldozer" is concerned OFC it will out perform AMD latest and greatest Phenom ll 1100T by leaps and bounds but i HARDLY doubt its going to run laps around a Intel core i7 990X. AMD is going to tach on cores which WOULD be nice if it wasnt for the 90% of consumer products including Software and Games that barely just now support 4 cores. MOST games/Software is only optimized for 2 cores with a small fraction optimized for 3 and 4 core systems. Taching on cores isnt really what will define the NEXT GEN of Pc computing but adding technology that fully utilizes the 2 and 4 core systems and allowing them to "crunch" more data per clock cycle and mainstream the data flowing into the CPU and using less power and lowering the Load temp. think of this example you have 2 fictional cars. one you put a bigger motor into to get your fictional 500HP the other you Modded/tuned using a turbo, ECU updates, exhaust and manifold upgrades in tern optimizing the power output without changing the actual motor size to get your 500HP. The end result you have a motor change on one and and a "tuned up" one on the other hand both with same HP but the tunes up car more then likely in a test setting will do better. the engine only modified car being the CPU( More cores) to the very modified original engine car ( 2-4 cores but new tech that optimizes and enhances the Data crunch per clock cycle saving Temps and Power. THis is a sense is what Intel was headed towards with the Sandy Bringe and soon Ivy Bridge line. everyone thought they were just gonna tach on 2-4 more cores ( 6/8 Cored CPUs) instead they dropped the HyperThreading and went with a TurboBoost 2.0 And SSE/Chipset revisions the end result is a CPU score almost as good as thier 6 core lines. What AMD decides to do with the Final release of Bulldozer is still up in the air, but the adding of cores tied in with Software thats not optimized for 6 and 8 core CPUs leaves a consumer with a "futuristic CPU thats still in a sense stuck in the 90's" some may argue with me on this and say well im set up for the future then. Yes and No. Yes maybe in 2-3 years you will have software that is utilizing all 8 of your cores but by that time not only will your CPU be prolly half the price you paid but im 100% sure there will be a list full of "Bulldozer ect" cpus that are around the same price then as you paid now and 2-3x more optimized. So in a nut shell your going to more then liekly lose money buying these "nextgen" CPUS now when we dont need them as opposed to 2-3 years form now when software utilizes them.

Edited March 23, 2011 by DnaAngel

[l1o2l]

DnaAngel, woah. Just woah. Got a lot to say there...

 

Just wait for LGA2011....

[DnaAngel]

Also if im not mistaken, wasnt AMD the first to introduce a 6 core CPU to the market? And it still got smoked by most of the the 1st gen Core i7 Quad Cores? that should be a very vivid Foreshadow of these 2nd Gen CPU's, AMD is first, But Intel takes that and puts out a CPU that smokes it. In this case Intel had the first on chip graphics, AMD more then likely will have a CPU that performs better Graphically speaking then the 2nd gen Core i line but Intel has yet to release its 2nd gen Core i7 Extreme Edition. So more then likely whatever "Bulldozer" brings to the table will be left in translation to the Core i7 EE with its released( which knowing Intel will be after "bulldozers" release to keep Intel as an enthusiasts icon), we've seen this time and time again since dual cored cpus have been a standard. and since then the general rule of thumb has stayed the same AMD= Budget, Intel= Performance.

Edited March 23, 2011 by DnaAngel

[DnaAngel]

Yes lol sorry bout the long posts just trying to make a very valid point. and claer up this misguided info companies lead us to believe

[ocre]

AS i posted earlier the Llano did better in your video because it was put up against a ENTRY LEVEL Sandy, either way you slice the cake both companies are dealing with 1st gen chip integrated Graphics which as always they will be mediocre until the tech is polished and refined. Until then 9/10 times a Gamer is going to apt for a Stand alone V Card or in a Lappy's case a mid to high end Graphics chip for their gaming needs. my last post was geared towards laptops because i read 2 pages of Laptop gripes and about needed a better v chip to make the lappy use less power and gain battery life. as far as the "bulldozer" is concerned OFC it will out perform AMD latest and greatest Phenom ll 1100T by leaps and bounds but i HARDLY doubt its going to run laps around a Intel core i7 990X. AMD is going to tach on cores which WOULD be nice if it wasnt for the 90% of consumer products including Software and Games that barely just now support 4 cores. MOST games/Software is only optimized for 2 cores with a small fraction optimized for 3 and 4 core systems. Taching on cores isnt really what will define the NEXT GEN of Pc computing but adding technology that fully utilizes the 2 and 4 core systems and allowing them to "crunch" more data per clock cycle and mainstream the data flowing into the CPU and using less power and lowering the Load temp. think of this example you have 2 fictional cars. one you put a bigger motor into to get your fictional 500HP the other you Modded/tuned using a turbo, ECU updates, exhaust and manifold upgrades in tern optimizing the power output without changing the actual motor size to get your 500HP. The end result you have a motor change on one and and a "tuned up" one on the other hand both with same HP but the tunes up car more then likely in a test setting will do better. the engine only modified car being the CPU( More cores) to the very modified original engine car ( 2-4 cores but new tech that optimizes and enhances the Data crunch per clock cycle saving Temps and Power. THis is a sense is what Intel was headed towards with the Sandy Bringe and soon Ivy Bridge line. everyone thought they were just gonna tach on 2-4 more cores ( 6/8 Cored CPUs) instead they dropped the HyperThreading and went with a TurboBoost 2.0 And SSE/Chipset revisions the end result is a CPU score almost as good as thier 6 core lines. What AMD decides to do with the Final release of Bulldozer is still up in the air, but the adding of cores tied in with Software thats not optimized for 6 and 8 core CPUs leaves a consumer with a "futuristic CPU thats still in a sense stuck in the 90's" some may argue with me on this and say well im set up for the future then. Yes and No. Yes maybe in 2-3 years you will have software that is utilizing all 8 of your cores but by that time not only will your CPU be prolly half the price you paid but im 100% sure there will be a list full of "Bulldozer ect" cpus that are around the same price then as you paid now and 2-3x more optimized. So in a nut shell your going to more then liekly lose money buying these "nextgen" CPUS now when we dont need them as opposed to 2-3 years form now when software utilizes them.

 

I just cant ree the intergrated graphics ever being that great unless everything about the system changes, sure as long as the consoles keep holding games back they might be able to at least play the titles, but they will never be what they are being hyped up to being. Just look at the wattage used in a card like the barts or the 460. Now think of adding that to a 125w CPU and you will see the issues. Then the System Ram, Vram is ultra fast, it has to be. Using the systems ram is gonna hold back the fusion GPUs for some time to come. For laptops and ultra low powered circumstances its wonderful and a great way to save space as well as money.

 

The only way i see fusion really pushing with powerful GPUs is if the GPU was getting a CPU and not the current road AMD and intel took which is integrating a GPU into a CPU die. If done backwards the the GPU wont be limited as much. Look at how big the new 6990 is as well as the cooler can which could handle 450w. Its a huge card that uses a lot of watts, but that is what a fusion processor would use if it had powerful parts. imagine the whole motherboard being built as one with the GPU pcb and the GPU internally merged with the CPU. This would drastically change everything we know about PCs but it is the only way i see the technology going. Vram is plenty fast enough to handle the CPU side. The end may not be what ppl think, the days of changing CPUs, ram, etc out at home could end as it all becomes integrated into one PCB. Its a huge change and this will go well and in the current trend of disposable computers like netbooks and tablets. just use it for a while and buy a entire new system as an upgrade.

Edited March 23, 2011 by ocre

[mattyamdfanboi]

ok so whens it out then?

[MercuryDoun]

AS i posted earlier the Llano did better in your video because it was put up against a ENTRY LEVEL Sandy, either way you slice the cake both companies are dealing with 1st gen chip integrated Graphics which as always they will be mediocre until the tech is polished and refined. Until then 9/10 times a Gamer is going to apt for a Stand alone V Card or in a Lappy's case a mid to high end Graphics chip for their gaming needs. my last post was geared towards laptops because i read 2 pages of Laptop gripes and about needed a better v chip to make the lappy use less power and gain battery life. as far as the "bulldozer" is concerned OFC it will out perform AMD latest and greatest Phenom ll 1100T by leaps and bounds but i HARDLY doubt its going to run laps around a Intel core i7 990X. AMD is going to tach on cores which WOULD be nice if it wasnt for the 90% of consumer products including Software and Games that barely just now support 4 cores. MOST games/Software is only optimized for 2 cores with a small fraction optimized for 3 and 4 core systems. Taching on cores isnt really what will define the NEXT GEN of Pc computing but adding technology that fully utilizes the 2 and 4 core systems and allowing them to "crunch" more data per clock cycle and mainstream the data flowing into the CPU and using less power and lowering the Load temp. think of this example you have 2 fictional cars. one you put a bigger motor into to get your fictional 500HP the other you Modded/tuned using a turbo, ECU updates, exhaust and manifold upgrades in tern optimizing the power output without changing the actual motor size to get your 500HP. The end result you have a motor change on one and and a "tuned up" one on the other hand both with same HP but the tunes up car more then likely in a test setting will do better. the engine only modified car being the CPU( More cores) to the very modified original engine car ( 2-4 cores but new tech that optimizes and enhances the Data crunch per clock cycle saving Temps and Power. THis is a sense is what Intel was headed towards with the Sandy Bringe and soon Ivy Bridge line. everyone thought they were just gonna tach on 2-4 more cores ( 6/8 Cored CPUs) instead they dropped the HyperThreading and went with a TurboBoost 2.0 And SSE/Chipset revisions the end result is a CPU score almost as good as thier 6 core lines. What AMD decides to do with the Final release of Bulldozer is still up in the air, but the adding of cores tied in with Software thats not optimized for 6 and 8 core CPUs leaves a consumer with a "futuristic CPU thats still in a sense stuck in the 90's" some may argue with me on this and say well im set up for the future then. Yes and No. Yes maybe in 2-3 years you will have software that is utilizing all 8 of your cores but by that time not only will your CPU be prolly half the price you paid but im 100% sure there will be a list full of "Bulldozer ect" cpus that are around the same price then as you paid now and 2-3x more optimized. So in a nut shell your going to more then liekly lose money buying these "nextgen" CPUS now when we dont need them as opposed to 2-3 years form now when software utilizes them.

 

NO, that was not a "Entry Level" Sandy bridge that was put up against the Llano quad-core. It was the i7-2630QM which is the bread and butter of the laptop quad-core sandy bridge, SURE there is going to be better ones but only those that cost significantly more money. the 2630QM is the equivalent to the i7-720QM(or 740) and just like the 720 it will be by far the most popular laptop sandy bridge quad-core. Yes there is higher performance laptop quad-core's but that doesnt change that the 2630QM is probably in the same price bracket as the usually cheaper AMD quad. Also i just noticed, currently no other Sandy bridge i7 quad-cores for laptops are released yet(check Intel's site, while many other model's are announced, none at this time are currently released besides the 2630QM) that that makes the Llano compete against what is currently the fastest laptop quad-core Intel currently offers. Turns out too, CPU performance wise the 2630QM its beating the $1000+ i7-940xm which was the first gen i7, fastest laptop processor ever... Hows that for hardcore? GG AMD putting that Llano up against the BEST Intel currently has to offer and winning!

 

1st gen Integrated GPU?? Have you ever seen any first gen i3 or i5(dual-core)? EVERY single i3 and i5(dual-core) has a the first gen Intel HD in it, Check out the column in each link that says "Integrated Graphics" Then all the Yes', then take notice of all the first gen i3's and i5's with it. What does this mean? Nothing really, just pointing out that you are uninformed.

 

"Intel was headed towards with the Sandy Bringe and soon Ivy Bridge line. everyone thought they were just gonna tach on 2-4 more cores ( 6/8 Cored CPUs) instead they dropped the HyperThreading and went with a TurboBoost 2.0" ??? Drop Hyperthreading??? WTF are you talking about, all i7 sandy bridge CPU's have it, and all sandy bridge i3's and dual-core i5's have it as well... And just like last generation they didnt put hyperthreading on the i5 quad-core's to separate them from the big boy i7's.

 

Lots of games already use more than 4 cores and pretty much every game out this year will use more than 4 cores. To be honest if its not a video game or a video encoding why would you need more than one or two cores, so that you can type faster in word?? Download pr0n harder? With more cores come exactly what end users of today are looking for, high performance multitasking!! Multiple cores for multiple programs ensuring the best possible speed and experience with as many applications open as you desire. Just because you clearly lack the ability to open more than one browser at a time to do alittle research BEFORE you post a comment doesnt mean other people dont.

 

Also if im not mistaken, wasnt AMD the first to introduce a 6 core CPU to the market? And it still got smoked by most of the the 1st gen Core i7 Quad Cores? that should be a very vivid Foreshadow of these 2nd Gen CPU's, AMD is first, But Intel takes that and puts out a CPU that smokes it. In this case Intel had the first on chip graphics, AMD more then likely will have a CPU that performs better Graphically speaking then the 2nd gen Core i line but Intel has yet to release its 2nd gen Core i7 Extreme Edition. So more then likely whatever "Bulldozer" brings to the table will be left in translation to the Core i7 EE with its released( which knowing Intel will be after "bulldozers" release to keep Intel as an enthusiasts icon), we've seen this time and time again since dual cored cpus have been a standard. and since then the general rule of thumb has stayed the same AMD= Budget, Intel= Performance.

 

Your mistaken... Again. The 6-core Phenom II's was the best answer AMD could offer to compete against the socket 1366 i7 which launched in Q4 2008(the i7-980x having come out in Q1 2010). The first Phenom II x6 was launched Q2 2010. Does this help your point that first gen i7 quad-core's destroy Phenom II hex-cores, yes it does. A CPU that was released one and a half years after another really ought to be able to be better... But to be fair when your working with an Architecture as old as the current gen AMD CPU's its no surprise, now that Sandy Bridge is out AMD is effectively TWO Generations behind Intel as The Athlon II and Phenom II core architecture is really competing with Core2 Quad's still. What does a 2nd gen i7 EE have to do with beating the future Bulldozer release? They already have the multiplier unlocked K-series and thats all an EE is, only its stock clocks are higher, WHOOPI!! Could have taken care of that myself with overclocking.

 

Personally in my opinion(So have fun trying to rick roll me with this and troll or whatever and say what you will but its my OPINION so i can say what i want as im not being factual in this upcoming statement.) My guess is Intel has Ivy Bridge finished and is just sitting on its hands giggling waiting for AMD to FINALLY launch Bulldozer. Bulldozer is going to Obliterate All current Intel CPU's including the i7-995x... Then Intel is going to say "Awwwww, thats so cute, It only took you 10 years to beat us again!!!" **High-fives all around AMD** And then Intel will say "Have you met my friend Ivy Bridge?? Hes got 8 hyperthreaded cores!" Then Ivy Bridge is trounce all over Bulldozer, Intel will Lawl, AMD will curse under its breath. And EVERYBODY wins because yet again AMD will have to bottom out its prices to stay competitive and everyone gets new and better hardware at good prices!

 

 

Also sorry for being a jerk, up until now i was having a bad day/week. I feel better now lol.

[luke_warm]

NO, that was not a "Entry Level" Sandy bridge that was put up against the Llano quad-core. It was the i7-2630QM which is the bread and butter of the laptop quad-core sandy bridge, SURE there is going to be better ones but only those that cost significantly more money. the 2630QM is the equivalent to the i7-720QM(or 740) and just like the 720 it will be by far the most popular laptop sandy bridge quad-core. Yes there is higher performance laptop quad-core's but that doesnt change that the 2630QM is probably in the same price bracket as the usually cheaper AMD quad. Also i just noticed, currently no other Sandy bridge i7 quad-cores for laptops are released yet(check Intel's site, while many other model's are announced, none at this time are currently released besides the 2630QM) that that makes the Llano compete against what is currently the fastest laptop quad-core Intel currently offers. Turns out too, CPU performance wise the 2630QM its beating the $1000+ i7-940xm which was the first gen i7, fastest laptop processor ever... Hows that for hardcore? GG AMD putting that Llano up against the BEST Intel currently has to offer and winning!

 

1st gen Integrated GPU?? Have you ever seen any first gen i3 or i5(dual-core)? EVERY single i3 and i5(dual-core) has a the first gen Intel HD in it, Check out the column in each link that says "Integrated Graphics" Then all the Yes', then take notice of all the first gen i3's and i5's with it. What does this mean? Nothing really, just pointing out that you are uninformed.

 

"Intel was headed towards with the Sandy Bringe and soon Ivy Bridge line. everyone thought they were just gonna tach on 2-4 more cores ( 6/8 Cored CPUs) instead they dropped the HyperThreading and went with a TurboBoost 2.0" ??? Drop Hyperthreading??? WTF are you talking about, all i7 sandy bridge CPU's have it, and all sandy bridge i3's and dual-core i5's have it as well... And just like last generation they didnt put hyperthreading on the i5 quad-core's to separate them from the big boy i7's.

 

Lots of games already use more than 4 cores and pretty much every game out this year will use more than 4 cores. To be honest if its not a video game or a video encoding why would you need more than one or two cores, so that you can type faster in word?? Download pr0n harder? With more cores come exactly what end users of today are looking for, high performance multitasking!! Multiple cores for multiple programs ensuring the best possible speed and experience with as many applications open as you desire. Just because you clearly lack the ability to open more than one browser at a time to do alittle research BEFORE you post a comment doesnt mean other people dont.

 

 

 

Your mistaken... Again. The 6-core Phenom II's was the best answer AMD could offer to compete against the socket 1366 i7 which launched in Q4 2008(the i7-980x having come out in Q1 2010). The first Phenom II x6 was launched Q2 2010. Does this help your point that first gen i7 quad-core's destroy Phenom II hex-cores, yes it does. A CPU that was released one and a half years after another really ought to be able to be better... But to be fair when your working with an Architecture as old as the current gen AMD CPU's its no surprise, now that Sandy Bridge is out AMD is effectively TWO Generations behind Intel as The Athlon II and Phenom II core architecture is really competing with Core2 Quad's still. What does a 2nd gen i7 EE have to do with beating the future Bulldozer release? They already have the multiplier unlocked K-series and thats all an EE is, only its stock clocks are higher, WHOOPI!! Could have taken care of that myself with overclocking.

 

Personally in my opinion(So have fun trying to rick roll me with this and troll or whatever and say what you will but its my OPINION so i can say what i want as im not being factual in this upcoming statement.) My guess is Intel has Ivy Bridge finished and is just sitting on its hands giggling waiting for AMD to FINALLY launch Bulldozer. Bulldozer is going to Obliterate All current Intel CPU's including the i7-995x... Then Intel is going to say "Awwwww, thats so cute, It only took you 10 years to beat us again!!!" **High-fives all around AMD** And then Intel will say "Have you met my friend Ivy Bridge?? Hes got 8 hyperthreaded cores!" Then Ivy Bridge is trounce all over Bulldozer, Intel will Lawl, AMD will curse under its breath. And EVERYBODY wins because yet again AMD will have to bottom out its prices to stay competitive and everyone gets new and better hardware at good prices!

 

 

Also sorry for being a jerk, up until now i was having a bad day/week. I feel better now lol.

 

 

+1

[DanTheGamer11]

AS i posted earlier the Llano did better in your video because it was put up against a ENTRY LEVEL Sandy,

 

omg i7 is not entry yet again i already mentioned that, 2ghz v 1.8ghz? entry level sandy bridge is i3 midrange is i5 and higeher end is i7 in case anybody says that again.... your post is too long so i didn't read it

 

whoops didn't see all other posts...what is this longest post day today?

 

I officialy ban very long bosts on this thread

Edited March 23, 2011 by Dan The Gamer

[MercuryDoun]

omg i7 is not entry yet again i already mentioned that, 2ghz v 1.8ghz? entry level sandy bridge is i3 midrange is i5 and higeher end is i7 in case anybody says that again.... your post is too long so i didn't read it

 

whoops didn't see all other posts...what is this longest post day today?

 

I officialy ban very long bosts on this thread

 

Its ok Dan, i pretty much destroyed anything he can say about "Entry Level" again. If he says that i7 is entry level again hes just plain ignorant. If you read my post you will see i point out how many things the guy is wrong about. You should read it, Plus my post is spaced well so its not a wall of test that is hard to read.