AMD Bulldozer Can Reach Up to 4.1GHz with Turbo Core Enabled

Judging by AMD's blog, and numerous other sources, surprisingly, the chinese forum is pretty spot on.

Turbo core 2.0 is actually a bit better than anyone expected, and can offer up to 500mhz on 'all' cores in certain situations.

The clocks they posted are pretty spot on also, but some who've taken a stab at the prices have been WAY off.

Efficiency at idle up to 95% better over previous chips. At full load their charts vary a bit from the web, but the official AMD slide states pretty big gains everywhere, but most especially at idle.

The chip I'm getting, the 8130P, the most expensive and most powerful one, is only going to be around $320, and a 990FX Gigabyte board about $250. Afaik this chip will be the only 125w TDP at launch, all the rest will be 95w.

Unless there's something severely wrong with these chips, I think Intel is gonna be in serious trouble.

Nah the reveal will be at E3.

I'm basing most of my assumptions on simple math really, but only going by facts admitted by AMD. Everything I've noted is from AMD directly, their blog, videos, etc etc. Unless AMD totally fumbles production, these chips are going to be ridiculous. Every single one of them is a Black Edition part, and most are 95w TDP, which is nice to see for AMD heads.

It's fun to speculate! Anyway I'm gonna build day one, I REALLY hope they start shipping immediately after E3, or even during.

Edit: Sites like softpedia have been quietly posting numerous updates on Bulldozer. There's quite a bit more official info than their was when this thread was started. A lot of it tho on their blog.

I'd guess that's very accurate, that would be right after E3, which is what AMD have said several times.

I'm in the same boat, already have a notebook with 2nd gen i7, for my girl. I'm waiting to grab an AMD based Llano notebook for myself, and Zambezi to replace my aging desktop platform.

I'm still watching for the desktop enthusiast class APU. I really really hope what Fusion products do make their way to desktop get the big TDP treatment that Bulldozer gets, or at least up to 8core Bobcat, but I doubt this would happen. I can hope tho!

essenbe said:

It should be very soon. They wouldn't be putting the AM3+ motherboards out if the chip release wasn't pretty soon.

You're absolutely right.
There's no doubt. AMD has said the chips will launch June, with the reveal at E3, availability soon after.

The boards, best one so far being the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7, will all be available 'before' the chips ship. Well I know this board^ will. I think it said June 1.

From a gaming perspective, a 965 is more than enough, seeing as 90% of games are console ports and the rest are not really designed for proper multi-threading anyway. Look at the Witcher 2, built for PC, it recommends a quad but screwed up AMD drivers. For workstation use, the existing six-core Thuban's are enough. Yes, Bulldozer is faster, but its speed you don't really need.

Forgive me, but you're absolutely wrong, on every single point you've made. Please don't take offense, do some research and get yourself into the know, it will serve you well I promise.

First and foremost, 90% of PC games are not console ports, and actually, a few that kind of are, are incredibly well done, look no further than Frostbite 2.0, which originated on Consoles, and was rebuilt from the ground up as a fantastic DX11 masterpiece.

Let me elaborate. It's not just the 8 cores, which surely may see little benefit for a game that is a terrible port. It's about the extreme clock speeds these chips will run at, and additionally the 5Ghz plus speeds we expect to see, with great ease, at 32nm and extreme emphasis on AMD's part with respect to efficiency. I think there are a number of benefits you may be unaware of.

I'm not sure if you realize just how badly a Phenom II X4 965 can bottleneck a high end Gpu.

Actually, nevermind, I'm not going to try to explain this. Feel free to do the research for yourself. If you simply had questions, I'd be happy to help. But you have your mind made up, therefor I fear (from experience) there's nothing I can say that will matter.

I suggest borrowing a GTX 580, or Radeon HD 6970, or go to the extreme Gpu's above them, throw any of them into a rig with a X4 965, and keep a good look at Gpu utilization in gaming, you'll be very dissapointed.

Again I'm only trying to point out how misinformed you are, I'm not in any way trying to ridicule or offend, I cannot stress that enough.

Edit: I just fear being honest on forums lately, not because of anything I've encountered here, but other forums. People have a hard time if someone disagrees and it can turn bad.


Here, I'll try to address each point made. Feel free to post your thoughts.

"From a gaming perspective, a 965 is more than enough, seeing as 90% of games are console ports and the rest are not really designed for proper multi-threading anyway."

The rest would include every PC game made, other than ports. It would take many lines of text to outline the games/simulators that incorporate proper multithreading, especially DX10/DX11 API based games, which by way of the API make multithreading not only easy to implement, but do so extremely effectively. Frostbite 1.5 and upcoming 2.0, Arma 2, Flight Simulator X, BFBC2 (Trying playing this with multithreading disable, it won't run) There's too many to list.
Final note on this point: "Rest are not really designed for proper multi-threading anyway" Unless you're an engineer, please elaborate, very clearly, exactly what this means. Hard as I try I don't understand any of it.

"Look at the Witcher 2, built for PC, it recommends a quad but screwed up AMD drivers." This is actually not possible, AMD has nothing to do with implementation of threades oftware, their Cpu's do this natively without any further work on AMD's part, this, if true, is on The Witcher 2's developer, they chose how to implement threading, fact.

"For workstation use, the existing six-core Thuban's are enough. Yes, Bulldozer is faster, but its speed you don't really need." This is your opinion, while your workload on your workstation may be suitable for a Thuban, this has nothing to do with those doing extreme heavy lifting work, there's always room for more power. Perhaps not for your workload, but you must realize different workloads scale better to superior hardware. Honestly though, I'm not sure I understand this particular comment.

I can't help but feel like you're looking at 'your' workstation, and your particular workload, and feeling what you have is suitable. This just doesn't work. Workloads scale out differently, and I find it hard to imagine that ALL workloads scale perfectly to a Thuban. I feel like this extremely erronous, and short sited.

I think you may be right, with regard to your personal needs, but you must realize not everyone is dealing with your identical workload. Also I think you may be ignoring many of the outstanding benefits of Bulldozer, and the Intel offerings as well.
I enjoy my Thuban, but I cannot wait to dump it in a few weeks for Zambezi, and I'm just one, there are certainly many many thousands of people looking forward to Bulldozer, Zambezi specifically, Thuban, solid as it is, is an incredibly inferior chip to Zambezi.