Memory bandwidth isn't even important, the only advantage you get from having more than what's currently available is a higher score in a benchmark.
wrong it does matter. Especially in something like U3E texture streaming.. or any game that uses streaming, the faster the mem the less/ or none hickups occur, + faster cpu/gpu communications.
Absolutely irrelevant however. Unless you're looking for a slight improvement on an artificial benchmark, any increase in bandwidth would be completely unnoticeable in 99.9% of any apps/games that a person would run. I love hardware as much as the rest of we Guru's but don't feel any need to upgrade until the Ivy Bridge's are released. Maybe my GPU but that's about it. Unfortunately, given the fact that my rig is used primarily for gaming, there simply isn't a need to upgrade CPU horsepower at this point in time. The multi-platform nature of gaming has altered the need to constantly upgrade due to the inherent weakness of current consoles. Their tech is over 6 years old. Until the next-gen comes out, we are stuck in a rut.
1600mhz Uploaded with ImageShack.us 2133mhz Uploaded with ImageShack.us maybe that pic is a fake or its because its an ES, or the user does not know how to configure ram. any way you slice it, the aida bandwidth on the ram and the caches in not good
And the fact the AIDA Benchmark doesn't use all the cores on Bulldozer 4.2GHz isn't overclocked when it shows 4.2GHz that means only 4 cores are active and that means only 2 modules are active 2 modules turned off you lose half the bandwidth you could use
heh you dont lose mem bandwidth like that, mem bandwidth stays fixed either you have all 8 or only 1 core running. I monitored AIDA64 with my keyboard's lcd and only 1 core is active during memory/cpu cache benchmark.
If you define performance by gaming, which I do, the only bottlenecks at this point are GPU's and hard drives. Any CPU, especially Intel, made during the last 2 years will have no issues. Please don't flame me for that, I love AMD but simply face reality. I had AMD from the Thunderbird up until the Opty 165. However, my "old" 930 i7 will pass muster with any game in existence for quite a while. Yeah, I may have to either add another 6970 or wait until the next-gen stuff comes out but seriously, CPU horsepower is limited by the software that can take advantage of it. I'm actually glad that things have been relatively stagnant for the last 2 years. I don't want to spend $2000 every 2 years but will if I have to. However, I haven't had to recently. Memory bandwidth is such a currently irrelevant thing to worry about that it almost defies description. The word "overkill" comes to mind. None of us would notice any difference between 2000 Mhz and 1333 Mhz on an i7 platform. Seriously.
yes on a i7 platform since 2008 vs Bulldozer 2011 and still it can't keep up. i hope its wrong though.. lol these bs rumors :infinity:
I honestly hope that AMD can compete with Intel, I really do. However, we have to wait and see. If Bulldozer can't beat Sandy Bridge by at least 15-20%, Ivy Bridge will come out next year and crush it. I guess pricing will be the determining factor. Personally, I'm waiting until Ivy Bridge hits. Then I'll probably upgrade once again. Unless the limitations of console-driven games make it a waste of money. We don't need 5Ghz speed demons to run Word and other innocuous programs. Only for games. And if developers keep concentrating on console crap, well then, I guess I can save a lot of money unfortunately.
You're point being?????? Artificial benchmarks aside, any Intel i7 will crush an AMD chip. As much as I hate to say it. I sincerely hope that AMD's Bulldozer will even the playing field. Then it will come down to a pricing war. Which is exactly what we all want....
My point being an Engineer Sample beats an Intel CPU using Floating Point which what was not considered to be the main factor for AMD K15h CPUs Bulldozer is mainly an integer CPU Fritz, x264, Cinebench R10 are all FLOATING POINT R10 i7 2600K 23102 Bulldozer ES 24434 Fritz i7 2600K 13164 Bulldozer ES 14197 x264 i7 980X 149-153FPS(1st Pass) 45(2nd Pass) Bulldozer ES 135-140FPS(1st Pass) 44(2nd Pass) It beats production models already Makes you wonder what the production samples(consumer binned, tin/cardboard box) or reviewer samples(high-grade binned, special AMD box) will get Not even going to bother /facepalm
Lol, I'm not trying to incite anything. Believe me. I'd love nothing more than an all-AMD system as when I had an Opty 165 at 3.0Ghz and a X1900XTX. However, Intel has stepped up it's game and Nvidia has also.
I never talked about an all AMD system as you can see <-- my system specs are a Phenom II + Nvidia 480GTX I prefer AMD CPUs and Nvidia GPUs :3eyes:Topic Derailed:3eyes:
Here's what I have issues with ... people going gaga over performance over engineering leaks ... numbers can be fudged if it cannot be independently verified. If it can beat it or not, no one actually really knows the performance of these chips until they can be verified by trusted sources or could be independently verified. At this point all information about Bulldozer should be considered rumours unless proven otherwise. I am hoping very much those are the performance numbers of an engineering sample, no doubt about it but I wouldn't believe it until I can see that the numbers can be proved through verification. deltatux
