<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Bulldozer hints at 3.5GHz 8MB L3 and Turbo 2.0</title>
		<description>Discuss Bulldozer hints at 3.5GHz 8MB L3 and Turbo 2.0</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 03:32:59 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/20952/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>valhar2000 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10177</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Read my comment more closely. If the game were not multi-threaded, or it were unable to divide its workload properly across the threads it spawns it would achieve 100% CPU usage. The fact that the Source engine does this indicates that it is implementing multi-threading well, whether it it happens to be CPU bound or not.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>valhar2000</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:17:46 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10177</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Freakazo_ says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10163</link>
			<description><![CDATA[http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2122436 Core size estimates. This means that 2 of amd's cores is the same size (1mm^2 bigger) than Intel's sandy bridge per core. So theoretically for an 8 Core Intel CPU we should see an 16 core AMD CPU with the same die sizes.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Freakazo_</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:26:43 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10163</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Freakazo_ says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10142</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Also Valhar2000, if a game uses 100% CPU usage it doesn't mean it's a well optimized game, it means you need a faster CPU :P]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Freakazo_</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:51:46 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10142</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Freakazo_ says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10141</link>
			<description><![CDATA[No I didn't mean that you had it wrong with games engine makers looking into multi-threading, I'm using one that's also been designed from the get go with multi threading in mind, which started out in 2000. But the scheduler part, I tested using Blender 3D setting it to use 1 thread then 2 etc. and windows showed that it spread the load between all the cores for all the threads. Maybe windows schedular handles things differently for different CPUs? I've got a phenom x4, what do you have?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Freakazo_</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:48:17 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10141</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>valhar2000 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10104</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Half Life 2 and the Episodes, and Left 4 Dead 1 & 2, which now use the latest version of the source engine (when patched), achieved 100% use of CPU on my Core 2 Quad. Valve has indeed been working on multi-threading, and it has payed off.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>valhar2000</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:04:53 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10104</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10091</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I won't mind them pricing components higher... if components are priced to low it seems the market goes to wild and people tend to switch parts way to early, anyway earlier than useful. That and the fact that companies have to compete too hard... basically compromising quality. See BFG downfall because of high GF100 failure rate, nvidia's defective notebook chipsets, and in recent news Llano's ZERO yield on first batch. Granted Llano brings a lot of new things but still, they have to compete. If components have better value and live longer it will assure products quality and software/driver support a lot better. Also shops could battle it out through offers reaching in their own pockets instead of waiting for makers to announce price cuts.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:00:56 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10091</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10089</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I don't... if Bulldozer is a good performer they will price them better for them. If it beats Nehalem, they will get priced higher. Not that AMD is an underdog and they are bound to price their products low out of some outdated idea, but they got slapped by annalists before with RV700 for pricing it too low, most of them said they could have cashed more since RV700 performed well against nvidia's offerings... and corrected that with Evergreen, not a single price drop for an entire year, which was unseen before in the GPU market.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:51:44 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10089</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10088</link>
			<description><![CDATA[No, I'm pretty sure... I did said recent games, not games overall including old and as a reference search for Valve's multithreading approach from 2005 or 2006, which indicates that some game developers were starting to consider multithreaded game engines a while back and guess what, we're in 2010. Also you got it wrong with the thread distribution model. It's true that some singlethreaded apps can segment the threads and the scheduler sees that and distributes them across all cores, but that's not the usual way with complete threads otherwise, why do I have MPC running CoreAVC and ffdshow showing a core at 70% and one at 40% and the rest under 20%? Tricky...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:44:38 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10088</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>agent_47 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10026</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Wolfdale: if they can score performance in the same level as intel or lower than that, then prices will be low. but if its better, then prices will be higher (if not exponentially higher). remember the days of FX in the pentium D era....FX 52 was at 999 dollars :p its coz the faster amd can cover its RnD cost, the faster they can start making profits...... @Freakazo_: cost of labor, material, janitors, running plans are all associated with production cost, or as you say manufacturing cost. i am talking about the investment which u forgot @Jurassic1024: based on that, a 3.1GHz SB is the same as 3.2GH current ones....i don really call it ground breaking. SB is still very much in grasp of BD]]></description>
			<dc:creator>agent_47</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:07:39 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10026</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10020</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Sorry, must have missed it. Just saw that the new uarch beating the old one. A little may have been clock speed, but it was only 300MHz.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:53:26 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20#comment-10020</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
