Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Barcelona K10 B0 pictured

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 13, 2007 9:13:13 PM

that looks so fake that even my anus explodes with ridicoulous compressed air of surprise!
May 13, 2007 9:17:42 PM

Quote:
Any news is > no news.

Odd that CPUZ does not read the L3.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=959&Itemid=1


Stop bringing up fudzilla s!it please;
-If a 2.4GHz Barcelona used 1.44V like they claim above, a Barcelona Opteron would have a TDP of about 170W :lol:  EDIT:It's 1.144 :oops: 
-Then there is the 3.05GHz Agena OC, and here, what is basically the same chip, clocks to 1.9GHz on 1.237V :roll:
-Yet here CPUZ recognizes the 2M L3.... BLAH!!!
Related resources
May 13, 2007 9:21:07 PM

thats about as real as pamela andersons tits.
May 13, 2007 9:24:24 PM

I recommend it reading it again with your glasses on, as it states 1.144 V not 1.44. Now be so kind as do do you math again and make some frensh conclusions.
May 13, 2007 9:31:50 PM

Quote:
I recommend it reading it again with your glasses on, as it states 1.144 V not 1.44. Now be so kind as do do you math again and make some frensh conclusions.

OK, my misreading :oops:  , but those fake monitor lines make me p!ss laughing :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
May 13, 2007 9:40:57 PM

What fake monitor lines? Someone is a bit paranoid.
May 13, 2007 9:54:53 PM

Quote:
that's what m25 and I are thinking

Is there another option aside FAKE, FAKE and FAKE?!
May 13, 2007 10:01:39 PM

Quote:
Hmm, I say we should go with F@KE!, seems more appealing to me :lol: 

But I'm stilling wonder how the hell would fudzilla come up with 266ht base and then 1333mhz bus?

that sounded more like Intel's FSB.. correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought HT is 5x the speed of processor base speed in AMD's CPU?
EDIT: 1333 IS 5 times more than 266. My bad.

btw, 1.263V for 1.9Ghz, yet 1.144 V for 2.5Ghz? That's quite a big jump in speed yet a big drop in voltage...
May 13, 2007 10:01:54 PM

Quote:
But I'm stilling wonder how the hell would fudzilla come up with 266ht base and then 1333mhz bus?


Probably by multiplying 266 times 5? ;)  In current Athlons the HTT speed is 200x5 = 1000, and on socket754 Athlons (I still have one) it was 200x4 = 800
May 13, 2007 10:08:19 PM

Quote:
Hmm, I say we should go with F@KE!, seems more appealing to me :lol: 

But I'm stilling wonder how the hell would fudzilla come up with 266ht base and then 1333mhz bus?

If AMD did clock them at 266Mhz base freq, then..
266Mhz * 8 multi = 2128Mhz = 2.1Ghz.
266Mhz * 8.5 multi = 2261Mhz = 2.3Ghz.
266Mhz * 9 multi = 2394Mhz = 2.4Ghz.
266Mhz * 9.5 multi = 2527Mhz = 2.5Ghz.

Where is 2.2Ghz Agena?
May 13, 2007 10:11:49 PM

Quote:
I suppose, but if you multiply what they did yourself, the numbers don't match, and computers are hardly ever wrong with multiplication

Also I'm still confused at how they will turn that into all the different ht3 speeds, unless if you can multiply the bus speeds by different amount unlike simply doubling it with ht1

Maybe this will help. I'm still trying to figure out the base frequency of a processor with HT 3.0 @ 3.2Ghz, and the one with HT 3.0 @ 3.6Ghz.
May 13, 2007 10:11:49 PM

Quote:
What fake monitor lines? Someone is a bit paranoid.

Paranoid?

The CPUz window is distorted on both axis, but the scan lines are perfectly horizontal. :lol: 

Fake!
May 13, 2007 10:15:02 PM

A lot of You fellow posters consider this a fake and I begin to question my eyesight and math skills ... What is <b>WRONG</b> with the pic? The numbers add up. The darker lines on the screen are nothing unusual. There are no other CPUZ pix of upcoming AMD chips. Unless proven otherwise (in a reasonable way, please) I will believe the numbers shown by Fuad. Remember these are engeneering samples.
May 13, 2007 10:15:20 PM

It would have been much easier for them if they just photoshoped the CPU-Z window, displayed it on a monitor and then took a picture of it ;) 
May 13, 2007 10:17:35 PM

Quote:
What fake monitor lines? Someone is a bit paranoid.

Paranoid?

The CPUz window is distorted on both axis, but the scan lines are perfectly horizontal. :lol: 

Fake!

The picture might have been taken with a long shutter time, for example with a phone cam, while moving horizontally to the right. Try that with Your phone cam and You will see what I am talking about.
May 13, 2007 10:18:29 PM

Quote:
A lot of You fellow posters consider this a fake and I begin to question my eyesight and math skills ... What is <b>WRONG</b> with the pic? The numbers add up. The darker lines on the screen are nothing unusual. There are no other CPUZ pix of upcoming AMD chips. Unless proven otherwise (in a reasonable way, please) I will believe the numbers shown by Fuad. Remember these are engeneering samples.


Anyone can come up with plausible numbers... that does not change the fact that it's fake. :wink:
May 13, 2007 10:22:42 PM

Please elaborate on Your statement that the picture is fake. Why do You think so? Proof of concept samples usually work well below the retail specs so I do not understand why those shown are not considered 'true'.
May 13, 2007 10:27:41 PM

Quote:
Please elaborate on Your statement that the picture is fake. Why do You think so? Proof of concept samples usually work well below the retail specs so I do not understand why those shown are not considered 'true'.


Read my post above as to why I think it's fake.

But please realize... a fake does not necessarilly equal bad data. Do you not believe that a fake can have realistic data within it?

Regardless... It is still a fake! :wink:
May 13, 2007 10:28:44 PM

8O I just got back from driving in fierce storms in the country... barely could see the road and all of a sudden I caught a quick glimpse of BigFoot and thud!... my truck skidded a bit but regained control and made it home safely with wife and kids... It is a shame I didn't have a camera, then I could prove its existence by posting it tooo... :roll:
May 13, 2007 10:30:08 PM

Quote:
8O I just got back from driving in fierce storms in the country... barely could see the road and all of a sudden I caught a quick glimpse of BigFoot and thud!... my truck skidded a bit but regained control and made it home safely with wife and kids... It is a shame I didn't have a camera, then I could prove its existence by posting it tooo... :roll:


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
May 13, 2007 10:33:44 PM

Quote:
What fake monitor lines? Someone is a bit paranoid.

Paranoid?

The CPUz window is distorted on both axis, but the scan lines are perfectly horizontal. :lol: 

Fake!

This is bogus! Have You ever taken a picture with a phone cam? This kind of distortion is very common - long shutter time combined with horizontal movement to the right.

That is not a reason for this pic being fake. Do better.
May 13, 2007 10:36:16 PM

Quote:
This is bogus! Have You ever taken a picture with a phone cam? This kind of distortion is very common - long shutter time combined with horizontal movement to the right.

That is not a reason for this pic being fake. Do better.


Okay... You win... It's real!

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
May 13, 2007 10:36:24 PM

Quote:
What fake monitor lines? Someone is a bit paranoid.

Paranoid?

The CPUz window is distorted on both axis, but the scan lines are perfectly horizontal. :lol: 

Fake!

This is bogus! Have You ever taken a picture with a phone cam? This kind of distortion is very common - long shutter time combined with horizontal movement to the right.

That is not a reason for this pic being fake. Do better.
If there was enough horizontal movement to cause said distortion, wouldn't there be blur? I know next nothing about cameras - I'm just curious.
May 13, 2007 10:43:14 PM

For a slow movement there would be no blur but the distortion would still be visible.

This picture might have been taken in haste - maybe because AMD is so secretive of it's babies.
May 13, 2007 10:44:20 PM

Quote:
Hmm, I say we should go with F@KE!, seems more appealing to me :lol: 

But I'm stilling wonder how the hell would fudzilla come up with 266ht base and then 1333mhz bus?



HT runs at 5X.

5 x 266 = 1330
May 13, 2007 10:46:10 PM

Quote:
What fake monitor lines? Someone is a bit paranoid.

Paranoid?

The CPUz window is distorted on both axis, but the scan lines are perfectly horizontal. :lol: 

Fake!

This is bogus! Have You ever taken a picture with a phone cam? This kind of distortion is very common - long shutter time combined with horizontal movement to the right.

That is not a reason for this pic being fake. Do better.

Finally someone who sees what happens when any monitor is pictured. Try filming it. It's even worse.
May 13, 2007 10:46:47 PM

You believe me bout bigfoot eh baron? it wus kanadian too...
May 14, 2007 12:57:04 AM

Quote:
Hmm, I say we should go with F@KE!, seems more appealing to me :lol: 

But I'm stilling wonder how the hell would fudzilla come up with 266ht base and then 1333mhz bus?

According to the last K10 lineup, HTT was running @ 1.5X the core speed; a 2.4GHz K10 like this should have had a 2-way 3600MHz HTT and CPUz would have to show a 1800MHz HT link instead of a 1333 one, or am I wrong :roll:
May 14, 2007 1:02:32 AM

Quote:
For a slow movement there would be no blur but the distortion would still be visible.

This picture might have been taken in haste - maybe because AMD is so secretive of it's babies.

Is it that hard to figure out how they do it?!?!?!;
they mod a CPUZ shot, including background to make it more credible, in photoshop, then they open the resulting JPEG file and take it a nice shot, with all the lines and screen distortions you want,...they ARE true; only the picture on the screen is fake :D 
May 14, 2007 2:35:48 AM

Quote:
This is bogus! Have You ever taken a picture with a phone cam? This kind of distortion is very common - long shutter time combined with horizontal movement to the right.

That is not a reason for this pic being fake. Do better.


Finally someone who sees what happens when any monitor is pictured. Try filming it. It's even worse.

I know what happens when you try to film a CRT. But, scan lines usually follow the distortion of the screen -- that is why I am crying foul here.
May 14, 2007 2:42:11 AM

I'm also calling false on this one.
May 14, 2007 2:53:41 AM

You know, I can accept you stealing my news wire, my sunshine and even my Pop Tarts, but leave the, "meh" alone damnit! =P

For all that don't know, I'm just joking with an old friend.
May 14, 2007 2:58:51 AM

Quote:
Please elaborate on Your statement that the picture is fake. Why do You think so? Proof of concept samples usually work well below the retail specs so I do not understand why those shown are not considered 'true'.

and tell us why you're triying to defend with sword and shield that this picture is NOT FAKE at all costs?
May 14, 2007 3:06:13 AM

Gah.. someone email that fud site to get a better camera. :lol: 

All this wonderful technology yet really crappy looking photo.

Also, why don't they even provide a link for validation of the processor, rather then a photo? :?
May 14, 2007 3:20:02 AM

Do you know the story about the shepherd who cried "wolf, wolf"?
FUDzilla is the shepherd.
May 14, 2007 3:30:01 AM

Quote:
Gah.. someone email that fud site to get a better camera. :lol: 

All this wonderful technology yet really crappy looking photo.

Also, why don't they even provide a link for validation of the processor, rather then a photo? :?


Because it is fake!

The crappy photo (and fake scan lines) helps to conceal the irregularities of the modified image that would be easily spotted otherwise. :lol: 
May 14, 2007 3:37:36 AM

you dont need photoshop to fake the information.

It just a gui. You can write it in C++ or Java SWT in 10minutes..
May 14, 2007 3:42:20 AM

Quote:
you dont need photoshop to fake the information.

It just a gui. You can write it in C++ or Java SWT in 10minutes..


Agreed!

But, if you don't know how to program, then the alternative is to edit the image. :wink:
a c 99 à CPUs
May 14, 2007 4:23:32 AM

That only happens on CRT monitors, which this unit appears to be by its pixel arrangement and pitch. LCDs photograph quite nicely as they do not need to do an interlaced scan to refresh the phosphors like CRTs do. The pixel transistors simply switch when their pixel data is changed, up to 60 times a second.

This seems plausible for the output of a shot on a CRT monitor. The only thing that I am curious about is the lack of an SSSE3/SSE4 flag. I believe that the 10h CPUs have the supplemental SSE3 instructions that the Core 2 Duos have- and this shows up in the C2D CPU-Z shots. CPUZ 1.40 says that it has preliminary Penryn support, and Penryn has SSE4(a?) So I'd expect that SSSE3 and possibly SSE4/SSE4a to show up in the flags section, but it's absent. Odd. Perhaps the CPUID flag isn't set yet or CPUZ just doesn't recognize it yet on the AMD chips.

This seems a little odd, but it may have some truth to it, or not. Time will only tell.
May 14, 2007 5:13:07 AM

why would someone with a k10 be using a dirty crt?
May 14, 2007 5:25:34 AM

Quote:
you dont need photoshop to fake the information.

It just a gui. You can write it in C++ or Java SWT in 10minutes..


Agreed!

But, if you don't know how to program, then the alternative is to edit the image. :wink:

I bet that You and Your ilk do not believe that man set foot on the moon because that video 'could' be made in a studio :roll:
May 14, 2007 6:25:49 AM

Quote:
why would someone with a k10 be using a dirty crt?


Well it has allot of fud on it. :lol: 
May 14, 2007 8:12:35 AM

I still use a CRT because of the better image quality not everyone wants an LCD monitor.
May 14, 2007 9:07:26 AM

Quote:
The only thing that I am curious about is the lack of an SSSE3/SSE4 flag. I believe that the 10h CPUs have the supplemental SSE3 instructions that the Core 2 Duos have- and this shows up in the C2D CPU-Z shots. CPUZ 1.40 says that it has preliminary Penryn support, and Penryn has SSE4(a?) So I'd expect that SSSE3 and possibly SSE4/SSE4a to show up in the flags section, but it's absent. Odd. Perhaps the CPUID flag isn't set yet or CPUZ just doesn't recognize it yet on the AMD chips.

There would be no SSSE3 extensions in K10. There would be MWAIT/MONITOR instructions included, which are first implemented on Prescott's SSE3 and there would be 6 new SSE4A instructions. Penryn's SSE4 would have SSE4A alternatives.
About the screen shot, I am sure that it is another fake, just because it comes from FUDzilla, although it seems real to me.
May 14, 2007 9:08:33 AM

Quote:
I still use a CRT because of the better image quality not everyone wants an LCD monitor.


So they use a CRT for better image quality but use a sh!t camera to take the photos...
May 14, 2007 11:06:59 AM

Quote:
I bet that You and Your ilk do not believe that man set foot on the moon because that video 'could' be made in a studio :roll:


You're wrong again! :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
a c 99 à CPUs
May 14, 2007 12:48:20 PM

gOJDO, thaanks for the info. It actually makes the thing more believable because the MWAIT/MONITOR are part of SSE3 for the Prescott and would thus show up as SSE3, not SSSE3. SSE4A is new and CPU-Z might not recognize it yet. This information about how CPU-Z works plus what we've been told about the 10h would generate what we see in the CPU-Z screenshot.

So basically the screenshot makes sense, it's just if it is real or not. I couldn't tell you that one as I didn't take it and there is no "Validated by CPU-Z" link below it, if the validation server could even do so :D 
May 14, 2007 2:38:15 PM

Quote:
What's odd about this shot is that it did not identify the L3 cache this time ;) 
Jack

Also, last time it was recognized as 65nm K8 AMD Opteron 148 (UP) @1.273v, and CPUz CPU specification was "AMD Enigneering Sample (ES)" which is a nonexistent string if you look in the CPUz.exe string resources.
May 14, 2007 3:10:13 PM

Quote:
What's odd about this shot is that it did not identify the L3 cache this time ;) 
Jack

Also, last time it was recognized as 65nm K8 AMD Opteron 148 (UP) @1.273v, and CPUz CPU specification was "AMD Enigneering Sample (ES)" which is a nonexistent string if you look in the CPUz.exe string resources.
Holy sh!t, these guys are really faceless :lol: 
!