Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [XBIT] AMD Aims to Fight Core i7 “Sandy Bridge” with Bulldozer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[XBIT] AMD Aims to Fight Core i7 “Sandy Bridge” with Bulldozer. - Page 27

post #261 of 300
Clock for clock comparisons are retarded, unless they both max out at around the same speeds.
Rig
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820k ga-x99-sli gigabyte 7970 wf 16gb 4x4 lpx 
Hard DriveCoolingPowerCase
samsung 830 128gb ven x/gt ap-15 evga g2 650w corsair 450d 
Audio
jbl lsr305 
  hide details  
Reply
Rig
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820k ga-x99-sli gigabyte 7970 wf 16gb 4x4 lpx 
Hard DriveCoolingPowerCase
samsung 830 128gb ven x/gt ap-15 evga g2 650w corsair 450d 
Audio
jbl lsr305 
  hide details  
Reply
post #262 of 300
itd be good to see them out performing SB but i dont see it happening
4423-PC
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k  ASUS Z77 Sabertooth GTX 295 Corsair vengeance 8GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
OCZ Agility 3 60GB + WD Cav Blue 320GB+SpinPoin... Generic DVD RW CM Hyper 212+ cpu cooler Windows 7 Pro  
MonitorMonitorPowerCase
acer 23" 1920x1080 19" Samsung 1440x900 corsair GS 700W Antec 900 Custom (Still no big boy fan) 
  hide details  
Reply
4423-PC
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k  ASUS Z77 Sabertooth GTX 295 Corsair vengeance 8GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
OCZ Agility 3 60GB + WD Cav Blue 320GB+SpinPoin... Generic DVD RW CM Hyper 212+ cpu cooler Windows 7 Pro  
MonitorMonitorPowerCase
acer 23" 1920x1080 19" Samsung 1440x900 corsair GS 700W Antec 900 Custom (Still no big boy fan) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #263 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by amay200 View Post
u said that 4 cores + ht cannot match 8 physical cores. due to the absoluteness of the statement I questioned it. want another analogy? Create an Octocore pentium 3 chip (8 physical cores) and bench it against a 2600k (4 real cores, 4 HT cores)

which one do you think will win?

Ultimately it comes down to core design.

IF AMD executes well, than this will be a killer product & I'll build 2 (maybe 3) BD based rigs, If they are competitive I'll build 1 (maybe 2) & 1 SB based comp. IF its not competitive I'll see about maybe building 1 BD based rig & 1/2 SB rigs.

I have 3 virgin OEM MS OS discs (win 7 pro, win 7 home & vista ultimate) That i've picked up over the last months/years that is begging to have new hardware to run it (don't want to waste them on the sadly dated hardware I am running now)
You need a physical core to run HT, to do that the physical core needs to set aside resources to run HT, so the physical core will not run at 100% while running HT. Just like when your machine is running a virtual machine, it eats up resources to run it and the computer. Real cores vs a core and a virtual core, real cores will always win. I want to see benchmarks to where HT is disabled on SB.
BULLDOZER!!!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8120FX Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 2ea MSI r9-270x 16gb G-Skill Snipers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD 3x1tb greens, 1x1tb black Adata S599 120gb LG DVDR/RW, LG Blueray CM V8 Win7 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG2762D Microsoft Antec TPN-750 CM HAF 932 
MouseMouse Pad
Microsoft X5 Generic 
  hide details  
Reply
BULLDOZER!!!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8120FX Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 2ea MSI r9-270x 16gb G-Skill Snipers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD 3x1tb greens, 1x1tb black Adata S599 120gb LG DVDR/RW, LG Blueray CM V8 Win7 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG2762D Microsoft Antec TPN-750 CM HAF 932 
MouseMouse Pad
Microsoft X5 Generic 
  hide details  
Reply
post #264 of 300
I hope AMD can aim. Im not even counting SB, my older i7 still rocks amd offerings currently. Come on AMD get in the game... I want to see another AMD64 like knock out chip, but IDK if we will.. I just want prices to come down to reasonable levels. Intel are greedy.
Core
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 @ 4.0Ghz Asus P6X58D-E Diamond XOC 4870/512 @ 800//4400 Corsair 3x4gb DDR1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x500GB WD RE2 Raid0 Asus Combo, Asus Combo Corsair H80 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP 2408h Wide Saitek Eclipse II Corsair HX850W Antec 900 Two 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech Mediaplay Cordless Black as in Dark abyss 
  hide details  
Reply
Core
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 @ 4.0Ghz Asus P6X58D-E Diamond XOC 4870/512 @ 800//4400 Corsair 3x4gb DDR1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x500GB WD RE2 Raid0 Asus Combo, Asus Combo Corsair H80 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP 2408h Wide Saitek Eclipse II Corsair HX850W Antec 900 Two 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech Mediaplay Cordless Black as in Dark abyss 
  hide details  
Reply
post #265 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by 78@pwnt4lif3 View Post
FAT chance AMD will overcome INtel.
Read.

They've done it before and up until the Athlon64 kicked Intels butt, it was practically neck and neck between the companies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom123 View Post
I was saying the combination of all of the aforementioned things add up to Bulldozer overpowering Intel. More cores and all new architecture will undoubtedly be more powerful. AMD's chips will be able to overclock just as good or better than Intel's. No matter how you look at it, Bulldozer will outperform SB.
No, not really, if SB has superior IPC speed then BD will only be faster/equal in situations where SB is using its HT cores, just like Thuban versus Nehalem, if you use all 6 cores on Thuban in a fair benchmark (To both AMD and Intel, that is) then Thuban is practically neck and neck with Intel.

And 32nm does not mean 5Ghz easily, we can't base anything off the Phenom IIs as this is completely new.

Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild View Post
I don't know why you're stating that AMD chips overclock better? There is absolutely no proof of that. Actually, if anyone had to guess how they would fare in comparison to SB, I'm sure people would say they would overclock similarly to Phenom IIs and to Nehalems. You see SB's overclocking capabilities are quite phenomenal and no other family of chips seems to be as overclockable.
To be fair, the 32nm Core i5s and Core i3s on 1156 that had the dual die thing going on could get very close, I think we'll at least see 4.5Ghz regularly on Bulldozer, 5Ghz if we're lucky/after the second stepping is released and quality goes up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom123 View Post
All you have to do is look at every node shrink and it will be clear. 65nm clocks were 1.8ghz-3.4ghz. 45nm came 3ghz-4ghz. 32nm can easily achieve 3.5ghz-4.5ghz+ matching or surpassing Intel. With higher clocks, and more cores, more cache, new architecture (if you truly study it and compare it to Intel) all point to Bulldozer being very competitive.
It all depends on the node AMD uses, we know it's 32nm but do we know what type of 32nm? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TehStone View Post
AMD doesn't have to fight sandy bridge with the bulldozer, they need to fight ivy bridge with bulldozer. I'm (literally) betting that by the end of the year, Intel will already be warming up the successor to Ivy Bridge too (which is the point where AMD expects 10% of its chips to be in the AM3+ form factor)

From the viewpoint of a prospective shareholder, what worries me about AMD is that they don't discuss the superior value that AMD chips often provide. Their marketing in this regard is pretty weak; it's their unsung strong suit.

Amd - always a day late and a dollar short.
See my sig, I'm getting sick of people assuming Ivy is actually going to be heaps faster than Sandy, it won't, look at Conroe vs Wolfdale, Or Bloomfield vs Westmere, the IPC is within 10% of the older CPU, they just add more cores, cache and maybe overclock better, Intel is probably getting that "20%-30% faster" number at stock clocks, which due to being on 22nm, Ivy will have higher stock clocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild View Post
AMD has always had higher clocks, more cores and more L2 cache compared to Intel and it hasn't stopped it from making poorer chips.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

AMD K5 - Had slower clock speed to Intel
AMD K6 - Similar Clock Speed to Intel
AMD Athlon - Higher but only due to AMD ramping up stock clocks faster (First chip to 1Ghz)
Athlon XP - Lower clocks (vs Pentium 4)
Athlon64 - Lower clocks, maxes out at 3Ghz vs Intels 4Ghz+ for P4 or Intels 3.8Ghz for Conroe.
Phenom - Lower clocks, maxes out at ~3.4Ghz, vs 4Ghz for Wolfdale
Phenom II - At first, lower clocks (Highest of 4Ghz), now equal clocks (Highest of 4.5-4.6)

You can't draw conclusions from what we know, Bulldozer could overclock well or overclock like crap, outside of this (And a few other) forums, it doesn't matter at all, but the fact is, we can't draw any realistic speculation until its out.

And just saying, generally it's harder to get CPUs with more transistors to clock high, more chance of one or two of them not going as high as they could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSprunk View Post
Hmmm. Everyone's talking clock for clock, but I'm starting to wonder how FX will stand up to Core2K on a core for core basis. 8 core is targeting a a 4core w/ SMT?

I know bulldozer is not the typical multicore design, so maybe that's not an apples to apples comparison, but I cant help but wonder how they'll go head to head in single threaded performance. Most applications/games these days still dont take full advantage of the multicore design (instead it seems applications remain single core-ish while the OS delegates various apps to different cores for multi tasking), making single core performance among the more important metrics in my mind (especially when core counts are equal)
I have a feeling AMD are going to compare modules to core + HT, we know it should be significantly faster in a multithreaded scenario, while if both cores/threads are getting used in a One module vs One Core+HT scenario, the BD will have an advantage, if Intel has an IPC/clock speed advantage then it won't be faster at all for most scenarios unless you're comparing, say, the single module or double module designs. (Dual and Quad core, respectively)

That said, all of this could be wrong and is just speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pursuinginsanity View Post
Since he specified post 2006, no. AMD has had the higher clocks. C2Ds came out 1.86ghz, 2.13ghz, meanwhile Athlon x2s were clocking at 2.6ghz and up. Move on to quads, and look at how high the Phenom IIs clocks are at stock compared to say, my i5 760 2.8ghz.
Yet compare overclocks, which is what matters on this forum...Up until recently AMD hasn't been able to get as high as Intel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obakemono View Post
You need a physical core to run HT, to do that the physical core needs to set aside resources to run HT, so the physical core will not run at 100% while running HT. Just like when your machine is running a virtual machine, it eats up resources to run it and the computer. Real cores vs a core and a virtual core, real cores will always win. I want to see benchmarks to where HT is disabled on SB.
The 2500k is just a 2600k without HT enabled.

And the thing is, cause these cores share caches and stuff, I'm curious to see how badly that can affect the performance in a cache heavy workload.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #266 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

And the thing is, cause these cores share caches and stuff, I'm curious to see how badly that can affect the performance in a cache heavy workload.
That will be interesting to see how it is handled.
BULLDOZER!!!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8120FX Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 2ea MSI r9-270x 16gb G-Skill Snipers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD 3x1tb greens, 1x1tb black Adata S599 120gb LG DVDR/RW, LG Blueray CM V8 Win7 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG2762D Microsoft Antec TPN-750 CM HAF 932 
MouseMouse Pad
Microsoft X5 Generic 
  hide details  
Reply
BULLDOZER!!!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8120FX Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 2ea MSI r9-270x 16gb G-Skill Snipers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD 3x1tb greens, 1x1tb black Adata S599 120gb LG DVDR/RW, LG Blueray CM V8 Win7 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG2762D Microsoft Antec TPN-750 CM HAF 932 
MouseMouse Pad
Microsoft X5 Generic 
  hide details  
Reply
post #267 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post
And the thing is, cause these cores share caches and stuff, I'm curious to see how badly that can affect the performance in a cache heavy workload.
Why? The L2 cache is gigantic. Why does it matter if it's shared?
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom 9750 (stock) MSI MS-7548 (Aspen) HD 6950 @ 971/1387 1.25v 8GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB Windows 7 64-bit ASUS VH238H 1920x1080 Seasonic X-650 Gold 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Rosewill Smart One Razer Naga Razer Scarab 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom 9750 (stock) MSI MS-7548 (Aspen) HD 6950 @ 971/1387 1.25v 8GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB Windows 7 64-bit ASUS VH238H 1920x1080 Seasonic X-650 Gold 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Rosewill Smart One Razer Naga Razer Scarab 
  hide details  
Reply
post #268 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post
Read.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

AMD K5 - Had slower clock speed to Intel
AMD K6 - Similar Clock Speed to Intel
AMD Athlon - Higher but only due to AMD ramping up stock clocks faster (First chip to 1Ghz)
Athlon XP - Lower clocks (vs Pentium 4)
Athlon64 - Lower clocks, maxes out at 3Ghz vs Intels 4Ghz+ for P4 or Intels 3.8Ghz for Conroe.
Phenom - Lower clocks, maxes out at ~3.4Ghz, vs 4Ghz for Wolfdale
Phenom II - At first, lower clocks (Highest of 4Ghz), now equal clocks (Highest of 4.5-4.6)

You can't draw conclusions from what we know, Bulldozer could overclock well or overclock like crap, outside of this (And a few other) forums, it doesn't matter at all, but the fact is, we can't draw any realistic speculation until its out.

And just saying, generally it's harder to get CPUs with more transistors to clock high, more chance of one or two of them not going as high as they could.
Well if you had read my second post, you would have noticed I was referring to Phenom IIs in which case they do have more cores, higher clocks and more L2 caches, but perform worse than Intel CPUs in most cases. Just compare the 1100T to the i7 960, or the PII 980 to the i5 750.

We're not talking about Xeons here, just mainstream CPUs like commonly found i7s and i5s vs PII x4 and PII x6.

I also pointed out that smaller manufacturing process in no way guarantees the fantastic 5+ Ghz for 24/7 use we've seen with SB.

Now, I'm not saying Bulldozer won't outperform SB (maybe it will, maybe it won't), I'm just pointing out some AMD fans are making outlandish statements (such as BD will "bulldoze" SB, it will overclock more, it will perform much better) with no proof and I'm showing that these claims have no basis.
Edited by born2bwild - 3/22/11 at 3:27pm
iMac 5k Late 2015
(11 items)
 
The Overlord
(25 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700K Custom Apple Motherboard AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4GB 16GB 1867Mhz DDR3 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
3TB Apple Fusion Drive 4TB WD Elements External Drive Mac OS X 5120‑by‑2880, 10-bit IPS 
KeyboardMouseAudio
Apple Magic Keyboard Apple Magic Trackpad 2, Razer Deathadder 2013 Bose Companion 2 Series iii 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 @ 4.4 Ghz Asus P6X58D-E EVGA GTX 680 SLI @ 1200Mhz 12GB Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro SSD 2 * 1TB WD Black 5 * 2TB Hitachi LaCie 1TB External HDD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG BD Combo Corsair H70 Windows 8 64-bit HP ZR30W (2560*1600) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech 920-000914 OCZ ZX 1250W CM 690 II Advanced Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Razer Goliathus Audez'e LCD-2 Schiit Lyr + NuForce HD DAC Blue Yeti Microphone 
AudioAudioOtherOther
Logitech G35 Altec Lansing 2.0 7 Scythe Ultra Kaze fans @ 3000rpm Scythe Kaze Fan controller 
Other
Logitech C900 Webcam 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-6360U 1536MB Iris Graphics 540 8GB RAM 256GB SSD 
OSMonitor
Mac OS X 2560-by-1600 resolution IPS display 
  hide details  
Reply
iMac 5k Late 2015
(11 items)
 
The Overlord
(25 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700K Custom Apple Motherboard AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4GB 16GB 1867Mhz DDR3 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
3TB Apple Fusion Drive 4TB WD Elements External Drive Mac OS X 5120‑by‑2880, 10-bit IPS 
KeyboardMouseAudio
Apple Magic Keyboard Apple Magic Trackpad 2, Razer Deathadder 2013 Bose Companion 2 Series iii 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 @ 4.4 Ghz Asus P6X58D-E EVGA GTX 680 SLI @ 1200Mhz 12GB Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro SSD 2 * 1TB WD Black 5 * 2TB Hitachi LaCie 1TB External HDD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG BD Combo Corsair H70 Windows 8 64-bit HP ZR30W (2560*1600) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech 920-000914 OCZ ZX 1250W CM 690 II Advanced Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Razer Goliathus Audez'e LCD-2 Schiit Lyr + NuForce HD DAC Blue Yeti Microphone 
AudioAudioOtherOther
Logitech G35 Altec Lansing 2.0 7 Scythe Ultra Kaze fans @ 3000rpm Scythe Kaze Fan controller 
Other
Logitech C900 Webcam 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-6360U 1536MB Iris Graphics 540 8GB RAM 256GB SSD 
OSMonitor
Mac OS X 2560-by-1600 resolution IPS display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #269 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post
Why? The L2 cache is gigantic. Why does it matter if it's shared?
Bottleneck situations depending upon the work load.
post #270 of 300
Brutuz: Neither AMD nor Intel sell pre-overclocked chips.

My previous point stands. And, if anything, your comment makes AMD look worse. I'll explain.

These lower clocked Intel's (1.86ghz C2D, i5 750) are beating higher clocked AMDs (such as a 2.6ghz BE, Ph II 955 BE) at stock. The Intels are getting gigantic overclocks by comparison (they would have to, to reach the same clocks as the AMD) which means they're only going to pull further ahead once OCing comes into the picture.

But since we were discussing RETAIL chips, this doesn't matter.

Edit: Oh, and the first Phenom was clocked lower.. but I don't think AMD meant it that way.
Why upgrade?
(14 items)
 
Why overclock?!
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 760 ASUS 55i Sabertooth EVGA 960 4GB 8gb 1600mhz Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
120gb Intel 320 (OS) 500gb Samsung 850 Evo Win 7 64 Viewsonic VX2250-Wm 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic G 550w Gold Lancool PC-K9B Logitech G5 X-Fi Titanium/AT-H700 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4690k Asus Z97 Sabertooth mk2 EVGA 970 8gb Kingston 1833mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
128GB Samsung 830 500GB Samsung 840 Evo allota fans but quiet! Win 7 64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2311H Rev. A01 Mechanical w/ Cherry Blues NZXT Hale 650w NZXT Phantom - white 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Anker CG100 Steelseries 9HD Sennheiser HD555 
  hide details  
Reply
Why upgrade?
(14 items)
 
Why overclock?!
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 760 ASUS 55i Sabertooth EVGA 960 4GB 8gb 1600mhz Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
120gb Intel 320 (OS) 500gb Samsung 850 Evo Win 7 64 Viewsonic VX2250-Wm 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic G 550w Gold Lancool PC-K9B Logitech G5 X-Fi Titanium/AT-H700 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4690k Asus Z97 Sabertooth mk2 EVGA 970 8gb Kingston 1833mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
128GB Samsung 830 500GB Samsung 840 Evo allota fans but quiet! Win 7 64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2311H Rev. A01 Mechanical w/ Cherry Blues NZXT Hale 650w NZXT Phantom - white 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Anker CG100 Steelseries 9HD Sennheiser HD555 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [XBIT] AMD Aims to Fight Core i7 “Sandy Bridge” with Bulldozer.