Zambezi

[StrangleHold]

Dont know if its real or not. Not bad. And these are unlocked too/FX.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...k_Speeds_Benchmark_Results_Emerge_on_Web.html

 

[Aastii]

The original source:

http://www.rumorpedia.net/exclusive-amd-bulldozer-details-from-gigabyte/

note update 2:

We have been contacted by GIGABYTE and they confirmed that the chat conversation and all the details are fake

 

[StrangleHold]

Dont know what to think.

 

[mihir]

I got really happy when I read the xbitlabs article.I like it when the underdog beats the ......(What word should come here??).
But I never trusted xbitlabs and also did not believe the AMD processor doing so well in the superpi mod.
But I sure do hope so that it beats the sand bridge or atleast is as powerful as the sandy bridge.

 

[RoRoYoBoat123]

I got really happy when I read the xbitlabs article.I like it when the underdog beats the ......(What word should come here??).
But I never trusted xbitlabs and also did not believe the AMD processor doing so well in the superpi mod.
But I sure do hope so that it beats the sand bridge or atleast is as powerful as the sandy bridge.

I agree it would be nice to see AMD Processors speed it up, AMD Motherboards have ALOT more options for customability. AMD Motherboards support SLI and Quad Channeling standard on even some of the cheap ones

 

[StrangleHold]

Yeah, its really hard to tell. I saw one a few weeks ago. A claimed engineering sample that was clocked pretty low and still matched/beat the 2600k. But who knows.

 

[mihir]

Yeah, its really hard to tell. I saw one a few weeks ago. A claimed engineering sample that was clocked pretty low and still matched/beat the 2600k. But who knows.

I don't think the 2600k can so easily be beaten.Let alone the lower clocked processor.
And I think with 8 cores it will beat the Intel SB in all the multicore application like 3d rendering and video encoding etc,since the AMD hex core was amazing at those tasks.
But gaming can be a bit unpredictable.

But nothing can be said for sure until something trust - able is released.

 

[StrangleHold]

I don't think the 2600k can so easily be beaten.Let alone the lower clocked processor.
.

I dont see that as unusual, it happens every few generations. The same could be have been said about the Athlon 64, had the P4 beat in clock performance pretty bad. Then the core 2 came alone. They have been leapfrogging each other for years.

 

[mihir]

I dont see that as unusual, it happens every few generations. The same could be have been said about the Athlon 64, had the P4 beat in clock performance pretty bad. Then the core 2 came alone. They have been leapfrogging each other for years.

No I don't mean it the way you understood it.

I mean the Core i7 2600k is a pretty tough and awesome processor to beat,and for the Zambezi to beat it would be a difficult thing let alone an underclocked processor(by lower clocks you meant underclocked right??)

 

[StrangleHold]

No I don't mean it the way you understood it.

I mean the Core i7 2600k is a pretty tough and awesome processor to beat,and for the Zambezi to beat it would be a difficult thing let alone an underclocked processor(by lower clocks you meant underclocked right??)

Thats exactly what I am talking about. People thought the Athlon 64 beat the P4 so bad. That the Core 2 could not do nothing but maybe equal the Athlon 64. It took a P4 of 3.0ghz to equal a Athlon 64 at 2.2ghz. But the Core 2 surpassed it.

 

[mihir]

Thats exactly what I am talking about. People thought the Athlon 64 beat the P4 so bad. That the Core 2 could not do nothing but maybe equal the Athlon 64. It took a P4 of 3.0ghz to equal a Athlon 64 at 2.2ghz. But the Core 2 surpassed it.

No I am talking about lower clock speed processor beating a higher clockspeed processor.

What I am saying is that the Core i7 2600k is a really good processor and for that the AMD processor would have to be an extreme improvement over the older processors to beat the i7 2600k.


By lower clocks you meant lower clocks compared to the 2600k or the AMD processor being underclocked from its stock clocks.Like suppose the AMD processor was clocked at 2.8GHz(stock) and then it was underclocked to something like 2.2GHz and then compared to the i7 2600k??

What I am saying is the AMD processor would have to be in its top form to beat the i7 2600k.

 

[StrangleHold]

I think your confusing yourself. What difference does it make. I said a Engineering sample that was clocked lower then the 2600k. Why does it matter if it was underclocked or it was its default clock. People thought the same about the Athlon 64 as you are talking about the sandy bridge. You havent been doing this long have you? I dont play circles.

 

[mihir]

I think your confusing yourself. What difference does it make. I said a Engineering sample that was clocked lower then the 2600k. Why does it matter if it was underclocked or it was its default clock. People thought the same about the Athlon 64 as you are talking about the sandy bridge. You havent been doing this long have you? I dont play circles.

No . But I know about the p4 and athlon 64.

I misunderstood you,when you said lower clocks I thought the AMD processor was underclocked from its stock clocks.

My Bad.

I think your confusing yourself. What difference does it make. I said a Engineering sample that was clocked lower then the 2600k. Why does it matter if it was underclocked or it was its default clock. People thought the same about the Athlon 64 as you are talking about the sandy bridge. You havent been doing this long have you? I dont play circles.

This part.I thought something else.

I know that the higher clock speeds does not neccesarily make the processor better.

 

[StrangleHold]

I dont know if Zambezi will be slower/equal or faster then sandy bridge. But its not unusual for AMD or Intel to leapfrog each other every other generation. Just because sandybridge is fast clock for clock at this time, means no more then how fast the Athlon 64 was at its time.

 

[mihir]

It would also depend on AMD's pricing.If it is as fast as sandy bridge or just a little off,and if the AMD is priced lower than the SB still AMD would do really well.



PS
We had a really big communication gap in the above posts.Maybe because of English not being my native language,I was not able to express myself clearly.

 

[StrangleHold]

Thats cool, I understand.

 

[2048Megabytes]

I hope the information you posted is true Stranglehold. I would be happy to see AMD match or exceed Intel's Bloomfield processor line. It would be just sweet if Sandy Bridge were matched or exceeded by the Zambezi processor line.

No news on Triple or Dual-Core processors being released in Zambezi?

 

[spynoodle]

If Zambezi really is this fast, it better cost less than $300. AMD needs to use their bang-for-buck strategy on this one. That's where Intel always fails.

I'd really like to see AMD catch up, though. Intel's approaching the monopoly level far too fast.