Text Size

AMD Fusion, Bobcat, Bulldozer

Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Discussion about AMD's upcoming CPU's and APU's

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby mdk777 » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:09 am

OK JohanAT,

Please explain this review:

ASUS F1A75-I Deluxe Review – Llano and Mini-ITX

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4833/asus ... nd-miniitx

You use a 1000 watt PSU to determine the efficiency of a 50-120 watt system ? :?:

You have to know this will give you totally skewed and totally inaccurate results.

The 1000 watt PSU in question will be well under 80% efficient. At the idle range it will be closer to 70%.

If you are looking at idle wattage under 100, you should be looking at a 250-400 watt PSU. several good gold rated units in this range could have been used:

You would then record 38 watts at idle and 108 watts at load.
not the 50 and 124 you report :!:

Why would anyone intentionally de-tune the reporting of a system :?: :lol:

Curious minds want to know. :wink: :mrgreen:
Image

Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
User avatar
mdk777
Shiny Badge of Honor Member
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby hyc » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:31 am

Obviously, a machine like this is going to be used as an HTPC with a farm of 20 RAID'd HDDs attached. :P
hyc
K8 Athlon 64 (Winchester) Expert Boarder
K8 Athlon 64 (Winchester) Expert Boarder
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:38 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby mdk777 » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:51 am

Its the kind of thing you might expect to see 10 years ago from a 12 year old at mad OC site. :o

When you see it at ANandtech, you really have to question if it was just poor matching of components...or some thing intentional... :roll:

Given that the site leads on SSD reviews, and has an obvious history of knowledge...one really has to question if such a glaring error could "just happen" :wink:
Image

Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
User avatar
mdk777
Shiny Badge of Honor Member
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby Smartidiot89 » Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:52 am

The writer for that article looks to be Ian Cutress, looks like Johan is the wrong guy to ask for an "explanation" :P
Smartidiot89
 

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby mdk777 » Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:19 pm

Well, I was under the impression he had editorial review status...
However, just my assumption I guess. :wink:
Did no review of the staff organization, so you could certainly be correct. :o

However, If I was working for a site that put up such a review, I would be concerned about it reflecting poorly on my work by association none the less. :mrgreen:
Image

Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
User avatar
mdk777
Shiny Badge of Honor Member
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby Pietro sk » Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:11 pm

mdk777 wrote:OK JohanAT,

Please explain this review:

ASUS F1A75-I Deluxe Review – Llano and Mini-ITX

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4833/asus ... nd-miniitx

You use a 1000 watt PSU to determine the efficiency of a 50-120 watt system ? :?:

You have to know this will give you totally skewed and totally inaccurate results.

The 1000 watt PSU in question will be well under 80% efficient. At the idle range it will be closer to 70%.

If you are looking at idle wattage under 100, you should be looking at a 250-400 watt PSU. several
good gold rated units in this range could have been used:

You would then record 38 watts at idle and 108 watts at load.
not the 50 and 124 you report :!:

Why would anyone intentionally de-tune the reporting of a system :?: :lol:
Curious minds want to know. :wink: :mrgreen:

Do you really think that pro-intel website will make fair reviews ?
Or atleast unbiased?
Image
The famous intel lawsuit Image Moron is playing VIDEO-game
Not biased Cinebench ? Think again ... They say it´s "finetuned" for intel CPU´s .. Image
User avatar
Pietro sk
K8 Athlon 64 X2 (Windsor) Elite Boarder
K8 Athlon 64 X2 (Windsor) Elite Boarder
 
Posts: 3929
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:59 pm
Location: Le sarcasm..

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby Pietro sk » Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:16 pm

Smartidiot89 wrote:The writer for that article looks to be Ian Cutress, looks like Johan is the wrong guy to ask for an "explanation" :P

It doesn't matter because It's published on AT website, that means they are responsible.
Image
The famous intel lawsuit Image Moron is playing VIDEO-game
Not biased Cinebench ? Think again ... They say it´s "finetuned" for intel CPU´s .. Image
User avatar
Pietro sk
K8 Athlon 64 X2 (Windsor) Elite Boarder
K8 Athlon 64 X2 (Windsor) Elite Boarder
 
Posts: 3929
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:59 pm
Location: Le sarcasm..

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby JohanAT » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:52 pm

mdk777 wrote:Well, I was under the impression he had editorial review status...
However, just my assumption I guess. :wink:
Did no review of the staff organization, so you could certainly be correct. :o

However, If I was working for a site that put up such a review, I would be concerned about it reflecting poorly on my work by association none the less. :mrgreen:


Like SmartIdiot already remarked, I am not the author of that article. I am in charge of professional IT; it is a completely different team. I have not done any consumer oriented articles since 2005 or so.
JohanAT
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby mdk777 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:29 am

Well, I stand corrected. :wink:

However,the appearance of either incompetence or intentional bias still colors the site when this type of glaring mistake/bending of the results occurs.

Would car and driver, Edmunds or any car magazine report the gas mileage of a car that required hi-test and the test was run using E-85 instead?

Of course not :!:

And if such a 25% error was intentionally reported, and got past the editors....you could bet they would fire the writer, retract and correct the result and apologize to their readers.

However, even when multiple people point out the obvious error in the comments...
Anandtech let the article stand. :!: :!: :!:

Now do you understand why everything that is retorted there is immediately suspect to those who understand the details :?: :?: :?: :?:

You asked earlier in the thread why the results reported at ANandtech would automatically be disregarded...

Now you have your answer.
Image

Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
User avatar
mdk777
Shiny Badge of Honor Member
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby Smartidiot89 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:36 am

Pietro sk wrote:
Smartidiot89 wrote:The writer for that article looks to be Ian Cutress, looks like Johan is the wrong guy to ask for an "explanation" :P

It doesn't matter because It's published on AT website, that means they are responsible.

It's the Editor-in-Chief, or who's responsible for the site who are responsible for what's published. I agree that it's not the best of idea to test a system like that with a 1000W PSU, but don't be so quick to point fingers.
Smartidiot89
 

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby JohanAT » Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:20 pm

mdk777 wrote:Well, I stand corrected. :wink:

And if such a 25% error was intentionally reported, and got past the editors....you could bet they would fire the writer, retract and correct the result and apologize to their readers.

However, even when multiple people point out the obvious error in the comments...
Anandtech let the article stand. :!: :!: :!:

Now do you understand why everything that is retorted there is immediately suspect to those who understand the details :?: :?: :?: :?:

You asked earlier in the thread why the results reported at ANandtech would automatically be disregarded...

Now you have your answer.


If you are truly concerned about fair benchmarking and reviewing, you should evaluate reviews on their value and what is written, not the perception you have about a site. I have been in the business for 13 years now, and the most important thing that I have learned is to listen to many people visiting forums or reacting to my articles. There are quite a few authors out there willing to listen to valid concerns.

My latest article http://www.anandtech.com/show/4486/serv ... rk-session contains two benches that are very "intel CPU friendly" and I am currently investigating what made them Intel CPU friendly and if that is relevant to the real world and. I had a lot of good pointers from several people. If those people would have immediately said "hey it is an intel site", people can not be educated.

In short: you gain nothing by simply bashing a site/person, especially if that person wants to hear your arguments. You can gain a lot by reasoning and debating.

For example: Euler3D CFD is a benchmark compiled using the Intel Fortran compiler. You could say that is "against AMD", but the fact is that the developer does not get good results with other fortran compilers on the AMD platform. The fact that Intel has produced a decent fortran compiler gives them an advantage on that part of the HPC market. Thoughts ?
JohanAT
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby mdk777 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:15 pm

Right.

You prove my point.
There are much more complex and nuanced issues to consider in writing a system review.

However, in this case, the situation is incontrovertible.

30 watts on a 1000 watt PSU falls into the "drop off an edge of cliff" efficiency range.

I was being generous when I said 70%. It could be significantly worse. The error is so large, that testing is simply pointless. If it is tested to only be 80% at 100 watt direct draw, you only know that it is somewhere between that and 0% at 30 watt direct draw.

Edit: looked at a test of a similar 1000 watt PSU tested at 40 watts

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zalm ... lus/5.html

= 65% efficiency :!:

There is no debate, there is no room for discussion. These are simply the facts.


So, do I need to read more of this review? Regardless of any bias I might have, I look at the test system description and say: "Well, whatever the author might conclude, it will be based on completely faulty data."


Again, knowing this and your 13 years of experience, how would you regard a competitive site that printed such faulty information?

Given this "plug-in" error, don't you think anything you publish (that will be significantly more complex and nuanced) will suffer in association? When the test system is well beyond the experience of the average reader, trust becomes all the more of an issue.

Since I don't set up and buy servers on a daily basis; if I was going to make a recommendation to my company, it had better be on testing that I can trust.

Don't you see how this credibility is 100x more important to the reviews you do :?:

You do have a vested interest in the quality of all articles, not just your own, that are published on this site. :mrgreen:
Image

Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
User avatar
mdk777
Shiny Badge of Honor Member
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby The_Ghost » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:04 pm

JohanAT wrote:My latest article http://www.anandtech.com/show/4486/serv ... rk-session contains two benches that are very "intel CPU friendly" and I am currently investigating what made them Intel CPU friendly and if that is relevant to the real world and. I had a lot of good pointers from several people. If those people would have immediately said "hey it is an intel site", people can not be educated.

In short: you gain nothing by simply bashing a site/person, especially if that person wants to hear your arguments. You can gain a lot by reasoning and debating.

nice post, please let us know what your findings are
Image
The_Ghost
K10 Opteron (Barcelona) Administrator
K10 Opteron (Barcelona) Administrator
 
Posts: 25675
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 5:06 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby burek » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:19 pm

JohanAT wrote:For example: Euler3D CFD is a benchmark compiled using the Intel Fortran compiler. You could say that is "against AMD", but the fact is that the developer does not get good results with other fortran compilers on the AMD platform. The fact that Intel has produced a decent fortran compiler gives them an advantage on that part of the HPC market. Thoughts ?


"I spent some time with the gfortran compiler but the results were fairly bad"

He seemed to have mentioned gnu fortran, not "other fortran compilers" (like ekopath/pgi).
gnu compilers are not known for stellar performance.

On the other hand, coming here and advertising a piece about how xeons are better then opterons in running icc/ifort compiled code is imo impudent.

I would suggest using an open source program (gromacs?), compiling it with icc on xeons and ekopath/PGI on opterons and than comparing results.
burek
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:28 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby duby229 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:46 pm

Yeah, but an Intel fanboy will argue with you until hes blue in the face that the results will only be comparable if the same compiler is used. I know its redonkulious, but I've been in that argument far too many times. But on the other hand it is my experience that results from different compilers are almost always well withing the margin of error. The simple truth is that you can get much larger gains by optimizing the code for the architecture, which puts AMD at a disadvantage. Or they can optimize the architecture for current software, which AMD has more or less refused to do...

My personal opinion is that the best results obtainable for a given application on a given architecture is the best comparison between them. (EDIT: after rereading this, maybe not always.. For example minimum frame rate in game play is important.)(EDIT2: Or rather the higher the minimum frame rate is the better, so I guess in that way my original sentiment still holds.)

Also might I add that the only results that matter are for real applications using real workloads compiled with real compilers using sane flags/configuration. For example if you want to know something about SQL performance then use a real SQL server with a real SQL database. If you want to know something about game performance then play through a good part of the game certainly not a timedemo. etc, etc, etc...

97% of the benchmarks that are being thrown around dont indicate anything at all.... NOTHING.... Well maybe it does indicate the massively pervasive incompetence in the enthusiast tech market. (Which oddly enough is being encouraged by some important names in the SERVER market) (Its almost as if they wish the death of enthusiast desktop computing)
MB: Gigabyte GA785GMT-UDH2
CPU: AMD Phenom II 955 BE @ 3820mhz
MEM: G. Skill DDR3-1600 2x2GB @ DDR3-1866
GFX: ATi Radeon HD 6850
OS: Gentoo Linux
User avatar
duby229
K8 Athlon 64 (San Diego) Expert Boarder
K8 Athlon 64 (San Diego) Expert Boarder
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:45 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby Montaray Jack » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:23 pm

Keep in mind that it depends on the code which compiler is faster.
I've used this page before, but here it is again. These results are 13 months old now FWIW. See the daily runs link for mainline gfortran graphs.
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/gcc-trunk/benchmark/
No.6: “The whole earth as. . . `The Village'?”
No.2: “That is my hope. What's yours?”
No.6: “I'd like to be the first man on the moon!”
--Chimes of Big Ben
Montaray Jack
K8 Athlon 64 (Clawhammer) Senior Boarder
K8 Athlon 64 (Clawhammer) Senior Boarder
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: The Village

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby abinstein » Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:51 am

duby229 wrote:Yeah, but an Intel fanboy will argue with you until hes blue in the face that the results will only be comparable if the same compiler is used. I know its redonkulious, but I've been in that argument far too many times.

That's why they are called "fanboy." :)


But on the other hand it is my experience that results from different compilers are almost always well withing the margin of error. The simple truth is that you can get much larger gains by optimizing the code for the architecture, which puts AMD at a disadvantage. Or they can optimize the architecture for current software, which AMD has more or less refused to do...

Optimize hardware for software is not just expensive but also a bad business, unless the software has a large market and will last a long time. If the software is a benchmark, then the (semi-monopoly) competitor will simply drop that benchmark.


My personal opinion is that the best results obtainable for a given application on a given architecture is the best comparison between them.

Your opinion is the right one. I believe something like it is even stated in one of the classic comput arch text book.


97% of the benchmarks that are being thrown around dont indicate anything at all.... NOTHING.... Well maybe it does indicate the massively pervasive incompetence in the enthusiast tech market. (Which oddly enough is being encouraged by some important names in the SERVER market) (Its almost as if they wish the death of enthusiast desktop computing)

*Like*
Anandtech -- a site which every visit makes me regret my time spent! It is a living testimony of Einstein's quote:"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
abinstein
K8 Opteron (SledgeHammer) Moderator
K8 Opteron (SledgeHammer) Moderator
 
Posts: 7166
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:49 pm

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby Montaray Jack » Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:25 am

abraidwood on the Ace's Liferaft said this in agner's thread on "CPUID family bits added because of flaw in Intel compiler" http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/cpuid-family-bits-added-because-of-flaw-in-intel-compiler-t428-135.html
Widening the scope of the thread slightly, I found that the same behaviour exists in the IPP library (ie fast vector code for Intel and suboptimal code for other) and again it was due to a cpuid rather than feature check. The library was nice and fast for the image manipulation I wanted to do.

Fortunately the workaround was very straightforward (though may violate the eula?). If you write a lib with the single function ippGetCpuType(*) and LD_PRELOAD it, then you can tell the IPP lib that your cpu is <whatever> and it will run the code path you wish to run. I mentioned this on AMD's dev forums a few years ago. It was instantly removed and was politely informed that it was part of the action against Intel.

The perf difference between the generic "ippCpuUnknown" and "ippCpuP4HT2" (the best at the time) was amazing (from memory it gave the Opteron box I was running it on a >60% perf increase, making it significantly faster than the P4 Xeon competitor)

Alistair

* ippGetCpuType is documented here: http://software.intel.com/sites/product ... uType.html, http://software.intel.com/sites/product ... /index.htm


Agner responded with
I think the IPP has been fixed in version 6 to work well on AMD. See my C++ manual.
Apparently, that confirms my suspision that AMD have been prevented from discussing the issue publicly.

WTF. part of the settlement was to keep quiet about the whole issue???
No.6: “The whole earth as. . . `The Village'?”
No.2: “That is my hope. What's yours?”
No.6: “I'd like to be the first man on the moon!”
--Chimes of Big Ben
Montaray Jack
K8 Athlon 64 (Clawhammer) Senior Boarder
K8 Athlon 64 (Clawhammer) Senior Boarder
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: The Village

Re: New Zambezi details

Postby scientia » Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:10 am

abinstein wrote:If we compare BD core and SB core, then BD will lose IPC, on average. Since the only sensible way of comparing IPC is by running the same binary, such comparison preclude the usage of FMA and XOP, and by definition handicap BD.

Well, unless you run hyper threading on SB in which case their IPC takes a very big hit.
User avatar
scientia
K8 Opteron (SledgeHammer) Moderator
K8 Opteron (SledgeHammer) Moderator
 
Posts: 3986
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:42 am
Location: Indiana USA

Re: New Zambezi details

Postby scientia » Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:18 am

jdwii wrote:Because most Programs barely make use of 3 cores

Which is irrelevant. People run systems, not cores, and systems have benefited from more cores.

Currently it takes a 4.6-4.8Ghz on a Phenom II x4 to tie the 2500K clock at 3.3Ghz.

You are either talking about SuperPi or a lightweight SSE benchmark. I don't know of any real code that this would apply to.
User avatar
scientia
K8 Opteron (SledgeHammer) Moderator
K8 Opteron (SledgeHammer) Moderator
 
Posts: 3986
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:42 am
Location: Indiana USA

Re: New Zambezi details

Postby scientia » Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:29 am

jdwii wrote:If a 4 Module bulldozer clock at 3.6Ghz can't beat or meet a 3.6Ghz 4 core sandy then Bulldozer is the lesser of the 2 in terms of performance. Just like a Phenom II x4 clock at 3.0Ghz loses to a 2500K clock at 3.0Ghz. Regardless of the reasons why its slower.

That would be relevant if they were the same price.

Fact is the only people buying bulldozer will be PC enthusiasts and Server people, Llano is for the Average PC user. If bulldozer does not win in these areas then it will be sad.

Not really. BD will be the core in the next generation Llano; it will be mainstream in the future.

i thought they where making a beast.

Faster than PII and faster than Llano. That seems fast enough.
User avatar
scientia
K8 Opteron (SledgeHammer) Moderator
K8 Opteron (SledgeHammer) Moderator
 
Posts: 3986
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:42 am
Location: Indiana USA

Re: New Zambezi details

Postby wuttz » Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:31 am

scientia wrote:Not really. BD will be the core in the next generation Llano; it will be mainstream in the future.


sci, trinity will feature PD cores. :wink:
BD-derivative, as it may. :mrgreen:
wuttz
K8 Athlon 64 X2 (Manchester) Elite Boarder
K8 Athlon 64 X2 (Manchester) Elite Boarder
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:48 pm
Location: Pearland, Texas

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby Montaray Jack » Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:31 am

This might be enlightening,
"Twelve Ways to Fool the Masses When Giving
Performance Results on Parallel Computers"
David H. Bailey
June 11, 1991
Ref: Supercomputing Review, Aug. 1991, pg. 54--55
http://crd.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/dhbpapers/twelve-ways.pdf

They might be old dirty tricks, but it all seems familiar.
No.6: “The whole earth as. . . `The Village'?”
No.2: “That is my hope. What's yours?”
No.6: “I'd like to be the first man on the moon!”
--Chimes of Big Ben
Montaray Jack
K8 Athlon 64 (Clawhammer) Senior Boarder
K8 Athlon 64 (Clawhammer) Senior Boarder
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: The Village

Re: Discussion in fair CPU performance evaluation

Postby mdk777 » Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:46 pm

Linux review does seem to show benefit over WIN7

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... ozer&num=1
Image

Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
User avatar
mdk777
Shiny Badge of Honor Member
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:32 pm

Re: New Zambezi details

Postby mmarq » Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:31 pm

scientia wrote:
abinstein wrote:If we compare BD core and SB core, then BD will lose IPC, on average. Since the only sensible way of comparing IPC is by running the same binary, such comparison preclude the usage of FMA and XOP, and by definition handicap BD.

Well, unless you run hyper threading on SB in which case their IPC takes a very big hit.


Umm naa! ... it doesn't need Hyperthreading to take a severe hit... it only takes a meaningful multitasking to take a severe hit...

why ? ... because i'm biased and anti-Intel and pro-AMD ?.. no!... because at least in Nehalem/SB the "functional" clusters are multi-purpose and do all kind of code execution, and there are only 3 ports and 3 clusters...

Today bentmarking is a case of pure "SINGLE-TASKING" measurement. A CPU can be very good at one particular type of code.. but then as in the case of Nehalem/SB, when there is one more application running, there is competition between the applications for only those 3 ports from where execution can proceed.

Even K10 in multi-tasking is better than Nehalem/SB... because K10 has 6 ports + 3 ports if we count Macro-ops packing (instruction fusion ala AMD).. while Nehalem/SB has only 6 ports total http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... m_arch.svg

Lets face it, Nehalem/SB, thought very good CPUs were designed with "benchmarking" in mind, at least one can say that they didn't care much about multitasking...

OTOH, BD with its co-processor oriented unit for SIMD code(the shared front end should hamper very very little since its 1 instruction multiple data), and so with up to 6 to 8 pipes/ports for each thread... BD IS A MULTITASKING MONSTER!...

So and since Johan AnandTech is here and is all about "TRUTH", then i could ask for when repeating the tests that they do but with all the benchmarkings running at the same time, or at least 2, or at least with anti-virus and anti-malware running in the background to closer match "user experience"... that would be delirious to watch!... even an atlhon could match a SB !? (don't know, but itching to find out! - [AT careful! don't lose your indirect Intel sponsorship])
Last edited by mmarq on Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mmarq
K8 Athlon 64 (Orleans) Expert Boarder
K8 Athlon 64 (Orleans) Expert Boarder
 
Posts: 2337
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:31 am

PreviousNext

Return to AMD Fusion, Bobcat, Bulldozer

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests