Quote:@AMD_Unprocessed AMD
We're getting settled in for #IDF2011 & can't contain our excitement! We've got news that will knock you off your feet. #AMD
Our adrenaline is pumping from holding in our BIG secret! We'll be spilling the beans tmrw at #IDF2011. Stay tuned!
4 hours ago
GPU's in general are hundreds of times faster than CPU's indeed. I can watch a 30 minute render on a 980X CPU turn in to a 23 second render on a GPU with roughly the same result using FurryBall for Maya. Very specialized area though, so not many of you would really care lol.
I am ripping this processor off the shelf as soon as it hits New Zealand. I do musical compositions, 3D rendering, post production rendering, video encoding...the list goes on. 8 cores would be amazing to have. And I can't afford the 980X for home use.
As far as gaming goes, no Call of Duty GOTYA or PacMan won't be able to utilize all 8 cores. But games post 2011 will be built around these processors to work best with them.
As far as GPU's and supported applications goes...Photoshop and After Effects (not so sure about Ae on standard cards) use a lot of GPU power these days. It may only be limited to the Quatro cards (and other workstation cards) though.
Applications such as Sony Vegas and other video post processing applications won't even touch the GPU to do their calculations. This may have changed though? I know many companies are optimizing their software to work on both CPU and GPU, using the GPU to do the more intensive calculations as it is, indeed hundreds of times faster in some cases.
That FX-8150 is mine!:crazy:
"Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do."
Check out Virus / Zarch on a "one core" Motorola 16bit 68000 CPU on 7 MHZ with 40.000 transistors.
The Bolldozer has up to 8x 64bit-cores on 3000 MHZ (3GHZ) with each core represents 213 million transistors. Together thats 16.000.000.000 transistors going 1 or 0 around 3.000.000.000 times each second.
Problem today is that everything is programmed in high language abstraction and effectivity of the CPU-use is hilariousely low. Because of that 2 cores or 8 will not make much difference.
What, really? I thought they were saying that they were having problems with getting it to run at a sufficient frequency to beat the i7 series, which was it's main competitor.
EDIT: Looks like last time I read about Bulldozer was in May. 4.2 GHz from the factory is rather impressive, and 8.4 GHz is even more so on a 8-core chip - A P4 at 10 GHz doesn't have much to say against this, really.
Pft my 700mhz celeron processor could out perform any 8 core junk...yeah...
But because of this thread I'm goin to overclock my processor to see if I can hit at least 4ghz. I mean how high of a multiplexer do I have to reach to go from 3.4 to 4.0?