hoofhearted4 Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 no real point in going to 8GHz. but knowing we can get to 5GHz on air, maybe ill go to like 4.5GHz or something with my H70 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blu02 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I think I'll mention it again; They only had 2 cores (1 module) activated when setting this record, since their goal was to simply reach the highest possible frequency. Not sure if it was the same when they tried 5Ghz with air though, but it wouldn't surprise me if they switched off all unnecessary bottlenecks from start. So dont expect a fully activated CPU to be close to these results. I assume anyone buying an 8 core CPU would want to have them all available :geek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan3345 Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Anyone know if bulldozer 8 core will be backwards compatible with am3? I heard it is using am3+ but that it will be backwards compatible with a downside of losing some features. However I also think that am3 has 419 pins and am3+ has 420, so that alone would make it impossible if true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecna6667 Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Anyone know if bulldozer 8 core will be backwards compatible with am3? I heard it is using am3+ but that it will be backwards compatible with a downside of losing some features. However I also think that am3 has 419 pins and am3+ has 420, so that alone would make it impossible if true. Some OEMs(Asus, MSI, and Gigabyte) have said that they have some AM3 boards that can run Bulldozer, AMD is saying you'll need the AM3+ socket. Now both socket AM3 and AM3+ run the 700 and 800 series chipsets. AM3+ however has the 900 series chipset which can allow for SLI, nVidia's multi-gpu setup, and supposedly has better support for hexa-core and octo-core processors. Both sockets have the same number of pins since the old socket 939 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan3345 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Anyone know if bulldozer 8 core will be backwards compatible with am3? I heard it is using am3+ but that it will be backwards compatible with a downside of losing some features. However I also think that am3 has 419 pins and am3+ has 420, so that alone would make it impossible if true. Some OEMs(Asus, MSI, and Gigabyte) have said that they have some AM3 boards that can run Bulldozer, AMD is saying you'll need the AM3+ socket. Now both socket AM3 and AM3+ run the 700 and 800 series chipsets. AM3+ however has the 900 series chipset which can allow for SLI, nVidia's multi-gpu setup, and supposedly has better support for hexa-core and octo-core processors. Both sockets have the same number of pins since the old socket 939 days.Honestly I don't care if I lose some features, as long as turbo works and all the cores will function safely and under the correct voltage/watts I am fine. Hopefully AMD will officially announce soon whether or not they will support it in a warranty. IMO if they do that should be a pointer that it IS safe for certain AM3 mobo's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I thought AMD has officially stated that they only support bulldozer on AM3+. :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan3345 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I thought AMD has officially stated that they only support bulldozer on AM3+. :unsure:This would make it appear so. The good news is for some manufacturers all you need to be able to support the new processors is bios upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWarrior45 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) first we saw bandwidth never matter (P4 Extreme)now the number of cores nor cache, I say its only matters the Architecture :rolleyes: That is exactly correct. When I took my digital logic design course here at the engineering school we were required to design and build a an actual, working microprocessor using TTL components. Now, these were little squirt guns; they were the size of a dinner plate and they ran anywhere between 2 Hz to 12 Hz and they had a 4 bit front sided bus with about 8 bytes of memory. The running joke in the class was they might be able to run Windows. The fastest clock in the class was the 12 Hz unit. The fastest and smoothest running processor in the class however, was a 8 Hz unit where the student was smart enough to use fast switching NAND gates from Texas Instruments that could switch on/off twice as fast as anything else that we had in the lab. Point being is that we found at that CPU speed is not about clock nor the number of cores, but the true determining factors in performance was architecture and the speed of the gates used. In fact we had an engineering teacher state "How fast can you get a computer to go? Well how fast can you get a NAND gate to flip?" Right now Intel has the better digital gates and the better architecture, so guess which chip is benching higher? Edited September 21, 2011 by DarkWarrior45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now