Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Bulldozer 40% - 50% faster than Sandy Bridge?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 479 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 15, 2011 12:59:31 PM

I need to see some preliminary benchmarks.
January 15, 2011 1:27:51 PM

The i7 950 isn't Sandy Bridge.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 1:40:21 PM

JF-AMD already dispelled this rumor on another site - apparently this Turkish guy donimhaber doesn't have any access to AMD internal documents despite what his website claims..
January 15, 2011 2:09:17 PM

Do you have a link to that?
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 2:53:16 PM

bobdozer said:
Do you have a link to that?


I'll have to look for it on my work PC since that is where I found it. But on Hardforum JF says this:

Quote:
Conspiracy theories aside, we just don't release benchmarks prior to launch. And I personally know that I have never approved a "leaked" benchmark.

I can't speak for the other divisions, but I know that it is not policy to release benchmarks prior to launch. There are very specific business reasons why letting the cat out of the bag, regardless of what the performance is, can be a bad thing.

Obviously there are those who keep pushing becase they want to know, but from a business standpoint there is more reason not to release benchmarks prior. Did intel release any offical benchmarks on SB prior to launch? No. Were there "leaked" benchmarks? Probably.

We do occasionally do some demos prior to launch (like with the Zacate last September) but that was not a benchmark, it was a comparison, nothing was audited.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 3:36:38 PM

OK, found the thread over on http://www.techpowerup.com/138328/Bulldozer-50-Faster-t...

Quote:
by JF-AMD (January 13th - 1:09 PM) - Reply
OK, first off, let me start by saying that we don't comment on speculation. If people want to speculate on this, have at it. This is not an AMD article and I have no idea who this guy is.

We are in the middle of quiet period so you would never see AMD making a performance statement. I have no idea about the validity of the article because, amongst other things, I don't speak turkish.

To date the only performance statement we have made is around the server throughput of Bulldozer.


IMO, this Donimhaber guy is just angling for his 15 minutes of fame..
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 3:48:39 PM

Are they ever going to launch Bulldozer soon anyways? I been reading about this for ages. First some BS article similar to this on the Anandtech forums some months ago saying someone leaked an engineering sample and it is faster than all Intel current i7's... but hell, by the time they release it, Ivy bridge or something else will already be out to overtake it.... or even the Haswell architecture.

Every time Intel does a die shrink, they always incorporate more main board controller functions like the GPU and they double their bandwidth. By the time Bulldozer is released Intel will have everything integrated into the CPU, LOL... You will be able to buy a CPU that has RAM, SSD, GPU and all in one chip by the time they are done building the hype for Bulldozer and finally release it... haha :D 
January 15, 2011 5:02:37 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
JF-AMD already dispelled this rumor on another site - apparently this Turkish guy donimhaber doesn't have any access to AMD internal documents despite what his website claims..


I never claimed that he didn't have access to documents (because I don't know). All I said was that this was not an AMD leak.

1965ohio said:
Are they ever going to launch Bulldozer soon anyways? I been reading about this for ages.


Client parts launch next quarter.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 5:10:52 PM

If it was strong enough for AMD to claim that then BD would have near a 100% IPC increase from Phenom II.

:lol: 

Right.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 5:37:53 PM

jf-amd said:
I never claimed that he didn't have access to documents (because I don't know). All I said was that this was not an AMD leak.


OK, I posted that before going to see exactly what you did say about it. However your other statements seem to state you think there are no such documents, since it is against AMD policy and also your pre-reporting quiet period.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the reviews once they come out.
January 15, 2011 6:58:10 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
OK, I posted that before going to see exactly what you did say about it. However your other statements seem to state you think there are no such documents, since it is against AMD policy and also your pre-reporting quiet period.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the reviews once they come out.


Since it was on the client side, I have no idea what they are referring to, and quite frankly I'd rather not get into the middle of it, I have my own business to run.

I am not saying that this couldn't be true. I am just saying that it was not initiated by AMD. I am very strict on performance data. If there is any performance data that comes from AMD, it will be in my blog first. Outside of that, anything else is suspect.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 7:22:59 PM

It's highly likely to be false given that how long it is before the product launch.
January 15, 2011 8:04:46 PM

Why is that, anands preview of sandy bridge wasn't so far off the final result and that was months ago too.

There will be bulldozer chips out there now in the hands of people who shouldnt have them.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 8:07:53 PM

Well Anand had the chip and he's reliable.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 8:13:52 PM

^ +1. I seriously doubt this guy in Turkey had any documents, let alone an ES chip. Now if he were in Taiwan or some other mobo/OEM site, then I'd give it more credibility.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 8:17:12 PM

Unlike tabloids like INQ and Fudzilla, I've never heard of the site, let alone seen if it's predictions are right.
January 15, 2011 8:27:10 PM

its the normal seesaw.......Intel steps up AMD steps above Intel
and then Intel steps above AMD.....
January 15, 2011 8:57:00 PM

Donanimhaber is one of europe's largest websites and they often get hold of information before release. They were one of the first to get 6950 and 6970 graphics cards.
a c 117 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 15, 2011 9:56:34 PM

amdfangirl said:
It's highly likely to be false given that how long it is before the product launch.


Not necessarily so (and maybe John can help us with this).

AMD has teams of engineers pounding away on microcode to repair errata, improve efficiency of instructions, etc., to optimize, enhance or even add new functionality. With the new design this becomes even more critical for AMD as they ramp to production. No real reason to 'spill the beans' as they continue to optimize before production, right?

There is an inherent "double-whammy" in this round: new design AND new instructions. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

My understanding (always questionable :sol:  ) is a primary result of the AMD/Intel legal wranglings is 'Chipzilla' must be more forthcoming on future instruction sets. In the past Intel would not divulge this information until a microprocessor was physically on the retail market -- keeping AMD months (if not years) behind the curve. What's the big deal you ask?

Instruction set optimizations are both backward- and forward-looking. We want 'old' software already implemented to perform better, and we want 'new' software to 'scale' with future instructions. Is this making sense?

The history of the 'Chip Wars' are full of examples -- the latest being SSE4. With Penryn/Nehalem Intel brought forth dozens of 'optimized' SIMD instructions: SSE4, SSE4.1 & SSE4.2. Being behind the curve, AMD brought forth their own 'unique' SSE4a instructions -- all three of them (being a 'Southern' American we would normally preface this with "Bless their heart" - LOL - just kidding, John!).

Guess what? Bulldozer will universally support almost all SSE4, SSE4.1 & SSE4.2 instructions, in addition to the new AVX instructions PLUS their own AMD "Instructions formally known as SSE5" (and now commonly referred to as XOP and FMA4).

And most importantly (the reason that AMD is so exceptionally tight-lipped about things these days): Randy Allen

Randy was doing his job a few years ago, and managed to stick both his feet into his mouth. He took a single unique instance of performance gains, and fairly or not, it was somehow implied as 'across the board' performance gains.

Bless his heart! :p 
January 15, 2011 10:09:21 PM

Instructions have been out with tools/compiler companies for a while. I think you are speculating a bit much on this.

There are obviously parts out there, but all I can say is what I know - this was not something that AMD engineered as a leak.
a c 117 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 15, 2011 10:21:26 PM

jf-amd said:
Instructions have been out with tools/compiler companies for a while. I think you are speculating a bit much on this.

There are obviously parts out there, but all I can say is what I know - this was not something that AMD engineered as a leak.


Just to be clear --- Am I incorrect in speculating that BD will support SSE4, SSE4.1 & SSE4.2, along with portions of AVX and XOP and FMA4 ??

Thanks.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 10:37:38 PM

Wisecracker said:
Just to be clear --- Am I incorrect in speculating that BD will support SSE4, SSE4.1 & SSE4.2, along with portions of AVX and XOP and FMA4 ??

Thanks.


SSE4 is a mess.. BD probably won't have the SSE4.1-2, but it will have SSE4a and the other extensions you listed.

EDIT: Well, maybe AMD got SSE4.1-2 licensing after all. Looks like they gave up on the SSE4a bit.
January 16, 2011 12:12:42 AM

Quote:
yeah theyre 50 percent faster thats why Dirk resigned


Dirk didn't resign.
a c 161 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 16, 2011 12:49:23 AM

Sweet, I love rumors :) 
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 3:45:23 AM

In all honesty, I don't think Bulldozer's performance is actually very important at this stage of time. Even if you knew all the benchmarks, it still doesn't help you if you want a rig now. How are you going to buy one?

Whatever Bulldozer will be, for those who wait for it, it is a given that it will be faster than a comparable Phenom II. What is also a given is that Bulldozer will drive down Sandy Bridge prices.

So essentially, you're either buying something now (need it) or you wait for Bulldozer (want more value). If you're in the mainstream enthusiast category, it won't matter if Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer is faster. If Bulldozer is slower, AMD will sell them to you cheaply, compete against Intel where it can, if Bulldozer creams Sandy Bridge, we'll have cheap Sandy Bridge, if they are roughly on-par, performance/price will still rise.

Either way, things will be cheaper. Given both CPUs require new motherboards, it's essentially who has the better product at the required price. Either way, if you wait, things will get cheaper, if you don't, you know the price.

It doesn't matter if this is true or not. We'll know how it performs a good week or so before they hit the shops in America and about a month before they hit Australia.
January 16, 2011 1:14:06 PM

Wisecracker said:
Just to be clear --- Am I incorrect in speculating that BD will support SSE4, SSE4.1 & SSE4.2, along with portions of AVX and XOP and FMA4 ??

Thanks.


http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/11/22/following-instruct...

This should tell you all you need to know about instructions.
January 16, 2011 1:16:09 PM

Quote:
but they reported that engineering samples was already sent out in december. I post two articles ripped from two sites in the the Dirk Meyer post about it and about this topic earlier this morning. Has engineering samples been sent out yet or is it just speculation?


Samples have been out for a while, that is public. I cannot say how long, that is confidential.

Stardude82 said:
SSE4 is a mess.. BD probably won't have the SSE4.1-2, but it will have SSE4a and the other extensions you listed.

EDIT: Well, maybe AMD got SSE4.1-2 licensing after all. Looks like they gave up on the SSE4a bit.


Correct, we have SSE4.1 and SSE4.2
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 16, 2011 2:38:12 PM

I dont doubt these claims. Companies always "cherry pick benchmarks", and if these are just simulations, i wouldnt be surpised if they actually did show some 40-50% gain over 1st gen i7. However that will likely translate to much less in the real world. Also, it would seem to me BD will gobble up Integer work like crazy, however might lack in gaming. So we might actually see 50% performance increases over even Sandy Bridge in certain areas, while maybe no improvement overall.
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 2:54:37 PM

Quote:
thank you. Probably just prototypes so to speak but its great keeps everyone guessing lol


Yep - aka engineering samples that usually have some features not working, but enough so that the mobo OEMs can start designing for them. This is why sites like Coolaler are more credible than others since they have sources within the mobo OEMs.

This Turkish web site is probably about as accurate as Turkish Star Trek is to the original :D :

a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 3:10:03 PM

Let's say it is 40-100% faster in benchmarks, but slow as crap in real world software because of the new core (module) design. All the AMD marketing keeps throwing the "we redesigned the core so much that it is a completely new way to think of a CPU core in general".

Intel completely redesigned their notion of a CPU core too... anyone remember Netburst? They hyped it up so much too, even said it'll do 10GHz. They leaked information about how the deeper pipeline and instruction sets could kill benchmarks too... but in real world performance they sucked and AMD took the performance crown just by the utter chance Intel punched themselves in the nuts. Perhaps AMD is so concerned with beating Intel that they redesigned everything to kill the benchmarks too, but in the real world it might be the next Netburst.

I wish everyone would stop speculating and building more hype, just in case it is a slap in the face. I hope it is better than Sandybridge, but if it is better, AMD will raise the price sky high again like Intel did as soon as Core 2 hit the market. I actually am happy that AMD is just a little bit behind at the moment. I was able to buy a Phenom x4 965 and according to Anandtech's benches, it is similar to some of the i7's regarding performance. I am happy about this because AMD is less than half the price for the CPU and the accompanying chipset.

If they get the performance crown next time and raise all their prices, then Intel will have to lower their cost. I am getting seasick thinking about it.

Anyhow... good luck to AMD and Intel, keeps innovation higher in the long run!
January 16, 2011 5:30:24 PM

1965ohio said:


Perhaps AMD is so concerned with beating Intel that they redesigned everything to kill the benchmarks too, but in the real world it might be the next Netburst.



If you know anything about AMD you should know that if there is a choice between optimizing for a benchmark or optimizing for things that matter to customers, we choose the latter.
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 5:42:19 PM

That's fine. But the hype on this has been building so much, if AMD doesn't deliver... they will be flamed... like Windows Vista. I still use Vista x64 on 2 systems, and I love it. But MS built the hype up so much, and kept delaying the release date, when it finally came out the hype and myth about it's greatness was so high that of course they couldn't deliver. I hope it really is better than Intel's lineup, but don't be surprised if the hype doesn't come as a backlash later.
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 5:53:09 PM

I didn't say they released or leaked any benchmarks at all. I just suggest they keep delaying the release of Bulldozer. They have been talking about it since 2009. Many people have been making up stories about the benchmarks and many other people have been stupid enough to believe it and pass it on. It is just building a lot of hype. No matter what the actual performance is, if stupid people are just trying to get attention, or AMD leaks a few things here and there to build more hype. Who knows, who cares, really don't try to think about it too much. If you are in the market to buy a system now... then do just that. Don't sit and wait for the next new thing... there is always a next new thing waiting around the corner. Hype, BS, and marketing. Some people on the Anandtech forums 3 months ago said AMD could be purposely delaying launch to; number 1 - build hype and interest, or 2 - make you hold off on building an Intel system just a little longer because something better MIGHT be on the way. Either way, it doesn't matter because Intel does it too!
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 6:00:49 PM

Just think about all the people out there waiting for this to be released. They are holding off on buying something now because they want to see what will come of this. That's like you are going out for dinner, but decide to hold off because it might be cheaper tomorrow, or you might get a better soup of the day tomorrow. Just order what you want and eat it! If tomorrow the price drops or you can get something better... that's just life! If you hold off forever, you'd starve to death! :D 
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 6:17:39 PM

Right. They make statements that it's coming. Then they say it'll be longer than they expected. Never gave any official release date until one of the AMD guys above said something about next quarter maybe. Vista was speculated years before it came out... and what happened to all the features they said it would have and the estimated release date they had in 2004? They still didn't include half they stuff they hyped about like WinFS... even in Windows 7. Mentioning little things here and there to get attention and people wondering is creating a hype or anticipation that they can perhaps not meet expectation.

I, myself have wondered too. But since they first announced it's coming soon on the horizon in 2009, even through 2010... people should hold off forever while they build a marketing demand. If you got a Pentium 3/4/D or old Athlon XP... just buy something now if you need it. If you already got a Core 2 Duo or a current Athlon or Phenom, of course you can hold off for the next better thing. :D 
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 16, 2011 6:43:30 PM

bobdozer said:
Why is that, anands preview of sandy bridge wasn't so far off the final result and that was months ago too.

There will be bulldozer chips out there now in the hands of people who shouldnt have them.


Because most of the estimates for Sandy bridge came from Intel. Intel tends to slowly give info and their benchmarks. Then they also gave Anand a early look at Sandy Bridge.

The last time a claim was made by some random guy that AMD would have 40% or better than current Intel CPUs, it spread like wild fire and turned out to be false. AMD tends to keep their stuff close until launch and I can understand why.

In honesty, I think its just some guy full of crap. Until I see true benchmarks I wont accept anything uless its a official release from AMD.
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 6:55:23 PM

Quote:
lmoa


Hmm, is that like "LMAO"?? :D 

Also, check out how short Uhura's skirt is at 1:14 into the video - definitely not Star Fleet regulation! :p 
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 7:08:37 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Because most of the estimates for Sandy bridge came from Intel. Intel tends to slowly give info and their benchmarks. Then they also gave Anand a early look at Sandy Bridge.

The last time a claim was made by some random guy that AMD would have 40% or better than current Intel CPUs, it spread like wild fire and turned out to be false. AMD tends to keep their stuff close until launch and I can understand why.

In honesty, I think its just some guy full of crap. Until I see true benchmarks I wont accept anything uless its a official release from AMD.


Exactly what I am trying to say, I just tend to ramble too much... ;) 
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 16, 2011 7:10:42 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Hmm, is that like "LMAO"?? :D 

Also, check out how short Uhura's skirt is at 1:14 into the video - definitely not Star Fleet regulation! :p 


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 16, 2011 7:26:46 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Hmm, is that like "LMAO"?? :D 

Also, check out how short Uhura's skirt is at 1:14 into the video - definitely not Star Fleet regulation! :p 


Reminds me of Indian Superman:



Man they were on something crazy.....

Quote:
Exactly what I am trying to say, I just tend to ramble too much... ;) 


Most people seem to not pay attention to trends. Intel always talks about their new process technology or arch. They always give estimates and benchmarks of their own. Then they probably purposley release a CPU to someone to leak a few benchmarks like SuperPi.

AMD on the other hand doesn't. We didn't know much about Phenom I in honesty except that it was a naitive quad based on Barcelona, the server variant. Benchmark wise we had nothing short of the VPs "40% better across a majority of workloads" quote (was about servers in specific situations too, mostly 4P+). Phenom II, Deneb, we only knew it as pretty much a rework of Phenom I, K 10.5. Other than that we never have any sort of benchmarks before launch date.
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 7:29:30 PM

jf-amd said:
If you know anything about AMD you should know that if there is a choice between optimizing for a benchmark or optimizing for things that matter to customers, we choose the latter.


While that may be true for the CPU division, the graphics (ATI) division has recently caught some flak over sacrificing quality for framerates in their drivers' default settings, without informing the user of same: Review Websites Discover AMD Driver Reduces Image Quality

Quote:
Getting directly to the point, major German Tech Websites ComputerBase and PC Games Hardware (PCGH) both report that they must use the "High" Catalyst AI texture filtering setting for AMD 6000 series GPUs instead of the default "Quality" setting in order to provide image quality that comes close to NVIDIA's default texture filtering setting. 3DCenter.org has a similar story, as does TweakPC. The behavior was verified in many game scenarios. AMD obtains up to a 10% performance advantage by lowering their default texture filtering quality according to ComputerBase.


In fairness, I should mention that Nvidia got caught similarly fudging the benchmarks a few years previously..
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 17, 2011 12:01:06 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
While that may be true for the CPU division, the graphics (ATI) division has recently caught some flak over sacrificing quality for framerates in their drivers' default settings, without informing the user of same: Review Websites Discover AMD Driver Reduces Image Quality

Quote:
Getting directly to the point, major German Tech Websites ComputerBase and PC Games Hardware (PCGH) both report that they must use the "High" Catalyst AI texture filtering setting for AMD 6000 series GPUs instead of the default "Quality" setting in order to provide image quality that comes close to NVIDIA's default texture filtering setting. 3DCenter.org has a similar story, as does TweakPC. The behavior was verified in many game scenarios. AMD obtains up to a 10% performance advantage by lowering their default texture filtering quality according to ComputerBase.


In fairness, I should mention that Nvidia got caught similarly fudging the benchmarks a few years previously..


:lol:  Lets not bring this up again! :pfff:  My opinion, if you cant notice the image quality being reduced, but you can notice the increased frame rates, its a optimizations, or increase in efficiency. If you can notice a loss in IQ, and i mean not by taking a screen shot, zooming in 100x, and rendering, but in normal gameplay, then its cheating. Just my 2 FPS.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 17, 2011 11:27:45 AM

Heres the problem with blanket statements: They are taken without context.

For instance, if you take a 6-core Bulldozer chip, pick an application that scales perfectly, and is VERY heavy in the floating-point department, and compare to a i5 SB, then maybe AMD is correct when they say "40-50% faster".

AMD made that statement without any benchmarks and without context. And lets not forget, AMD is trumping the product that AMD needs to compete with. So take AMD's statements for what they are: Statements.
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2011 12:49:55 PM

But they never made a statement. That is the point. It is just someone trying to get attention. Making a statement will involve some official post or press release.
January 17, 2011 5:04:33 PM

The only statement that we have made is in relation to servers. The 16-core BD part will have ~50% greater throughput than our current 12-core.

But you cannot make client assumptions based on that.
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2011 5:09:28 PM

Right. There have been no official statements about the consumer end products. Everything out there right now is hearsay to get some attention or to stir the pot in some threads.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 18, 2011 2:21:01 AM

Quote:
Here we use software to say which hardware is the best. Designed by a third party to run on a third party to test which is the so called best hardware.

Without the software we can't run the hardware. If its flawed our hardware performed flawed.

Here's a example. 3mark 01 the E8600 beat the I7 and the phenom II in it. Micron memory performs better than than hydra Elpidas and samsung ram sticks. We can say but hey that's 01 yet we disable the cores and get a lower score on it.

Reason I use this example is just to show benchmarks always favours a certain type of series of processors. Yet we use it to compare all the hardware. We always see the clock speeds in the benchmarks but where's the rest of the tweaks that has been done on a testing system. if a hardware manufacturer optimize their driver to let it perform better in a benchmark its called cheating. But is it really? using software to manipulate other software to get the best out of your hardware. ain't that what they all been striving for with updates and such?


Synthetic benchmarks are synthetic. They can show a processors highest potential, but don't always move to real world. Thats why its nice to see it and then move to real world programs like games, rendering apps and compiling to see what they are really capable of.

Thats why when Core 2 Duo/Quad came out, the hardcore AMD fans moved towards K8s memory thoroghput as a sign of superiority while only in the server market in specific applications turned out to be true. In most consumer real world applications, Core 2 decimated K8 and even AMDs attempt to stay Intels quads, FX (ouch in terms of power usage).

As for favoring, its all about optimizations. Intel has the funds, like nVidia, to reach out and give developers the chance to optimiza for their hardware. ATI started to do this, AMD really never has although they seem to be but I think its just a marketing ploy more than it is real optimizations.

Funny enough Barcelonas statement of 40% better got thrown into the consumer end by hardcore fans and it seems the 50% better might too, and the 50% is from a comparison between current AMD server products and upcoming CPU products. I am sure we will hear more before any official benchmarks are released. Its good we have someone like JF here that can dispell the claims easily since he works with AMD. Might help to stop the hype.
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2011 2:27:41 PM

ares1214 said:
:lol:  Lets not bring this up again! :pfff:  My opinion, if you cant notice the image quality being reduced, but you can notice the increased frame rates, its a optimizations, or increase in efficiency. If you can notice a loss in IQ, and i mean not by taking a screen shot, zooming in 100x, and rendering, but in normal gameplay, then its cheating. Just my 2 FPS.


I just brought this up as a counterpoint to JF's statement that AMD doesn't optimize for benchmarks, not to derail the thread which is about Bulldozer being faster than SB. However I believe JF was referring to the server division, not all of AMD, since he is not responsible for the other divisions. And I think server, which is aimed at IT professionals, would not risk its reputation and hence future sales by stooping to cheating on benchmarks :p  ..
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2011 2:33:34 PM

Does AMD have an answer for QuickSync?
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!