LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.AMD leaked slide shows three Bulldozer processors due to land any day now.
Read more.AMD leaked slide shows three Bulldozer processors due to land any day now.
Yawn AMD.. Unless the user is stuck for space or is a troll who plays all games on 720p set at Minimum graphics these processors are no use. MB is dearer than Z68 counterpart and in terms of computing simple i3 2100 does better job. Never mind video encoding.
I game on a AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (3.4 Stock) with 8Gb 1600 ram and a MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozr 3.Originally Posted by edvinasm
Everything runs fine in 1920x1080 (1080p) 16 AF, MSAA & FXAA enabled when both are available and detail maxxed out in all other settings. I usually get between 45 and 60 FPS depending on the game and it runs absolutely fine.
So the whole thing with 720p and minimum visuals what you have stated is a joke, I suggest that you look into things a bit further before making bold statements like that.
As for the troll comment I would seriously reconsider not using that again or you may find yourself on the receiving end of some sort of ban in the future. You are a newish member here and a comment like that is not going to go down to well with the rest of the community.
This is why Intel can afford to artificially delay Ivy Bridge, we desperately need another breakthrough chip from AMD
Corrected
Basically in four to five months AMD have done the following:
FX8150 - 125W. No change
FX8120 - 125W at launch. Touted 95W version only available in December from a few retailers in China. Now all FX8120 are 95W,not some.
FX8140 - 100MHZ speed bump of FX8120 and still 95W
FX6200 - new 125W TDP FX6100 series SKU with a 600MHZ speed bump over the 95W FX6100.
FX6120 - 200MHZ speed bump over the FX6100 at the same 95W TDP
FX4170 - new 125W TDP SKU with a 600MHZ speedbump over the 95W FX4100
FX4120 - new 95W TDP SKU with a 300MHZ speedbump over the 95W FX4100
It does seem things are improving a bit more. Hopefully,Vishera will be out sooner than later though. Usually AMD has only 100MHZ speed bumps at the same TDP every three to six months.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 20-02-2012 at 06:46 PM.
Pahaha, thats the ONLY reason why youd want a high end chip, cpu performance rarely matters now as GPU are the bottlenecks, running at a low resolution and low graphic settings is the only real way of seperating the cpus suffciently apart.
A simple i3 gets decimated by bulldozer, confused why video encoding is bad on BD? If its a multi-threaded application then AMD has the edge.
This is wrong on so many levels.
For HTPC work, AMD has a better package, actually sticks to the required frame rate for starters and the IGP produces better quality images.
As others have pointed out GPU not CPU is the bottleneck, AMD plays games just fine at 1080p res.
As far as space is concerned I agree that AMD is a better choice than intel. Partly this is because an Atom v an E-450 is not much of a contest (Atom does make a nice home server though), but even using higher performing CPUs (i3, i5) where Intel has a clear performance advantage you should consider the quality of design of the board and ease of installation as well as pure performance. Overall if planning a mini-itx build I would pick AMD.
Cat-the -fifth comment is much more interesting. Sure AMD are improving but not by enough. Would like to see major reduction in TDP for same performance
I am certainly converting more and more to AMD, yes my main machine is still intel but that is more due to not wanting/needing an upgrade in many years.
My netbook is on an AMD C-50 which is nothing but amazing in a netbook.
From my experience with the C-50 I am in the process of building a HTPC using an A8-3870.
AMD are certainly getting a lot right in my book.
Erm what? If anything BD is equal to SB at MAX settings as that is when games become gpu limited.
I can get an FX mobo for under 40 quid as well. Whats the cheapest z68 you can get?
Your i3 comment basically confirms how completely clueless you are all around.
i recently got an E-450 netbook (Lenovo X121e) and its growing on me more and more each day. Loving the face i can play videos on it and the battery life is barely affected
AMD are getting their lower end and low power systems bang on, we just need to see some further optimizations with BD power usage and some more optimisations in software to actually use the fusion system for what it is!
I would also like to point out i got a high end 990FX board for the same price that most people pay for a low-mid end SB S1155 board...
If you're comparing the best BD CPU to an i3, then yes it should be equal when it comes to gaming. But if it's about matching the best each manufacturer has, then the benchmark numbers speak for themselves, as either i5 or i7 CPUs have a very significant edge over the laughable BD architecture, especially when compared to Phenom II X6 systems. But then again, AMD itself admitted to have lost and stopped competing with Intel toe to toe, performance wise.
Still, on a price to performance ratio, things might not be so crystal clear.
No I wasn't comparing the i3 vs BD in gaming at all. In anything except gaming BD absolutely thrashes the i3.
In gpu limited games, BD performs just as well as any intel cpu.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/battle...nchmark-test/3
You can also get an FX mobo for under 40 quid, but I haven't seen a Z68 for that price.
Let's see what the intel fanboy said...
So basically everything he said was just utter crap?Yawn AMD.. Unless the user is stuck for space or is a troll who plays all games on 720p set at Minimum graphics these processors are no use. MB is dearer than Z68 counterpart and in terms of computing simple i3 2100 does better job. Never mind video encoding.
1) BD matches SB at max settings not minimum (anyone who knows anything about gaming already knows this btw).
2) FX mobo's are cheaper
3) It's pretty apparent that BD thrashes an i3 at "computing".
4) As for encoding...yeah I'm not even going to go there. Feel free to try.
I will say mobo price is another reason my htpc is going AMD, I went for a 'high end' A75 board for £65.00 which has Raid 0/1/10, USB 3 and 6xSATA 3, 1866mhz DDR3 support (4 slots) all within a nice mATX board.
I do think power consumption is something AMD have got perfect, my htpc will have low power usage yet quite a lot of grunt to show for it.
Try? Pfft, I have better things to do than flog a dead horse. I prefer to be realistic, I don't care for fanboys on any side.
The facts though, are that BD is a trash architecture which is easily proven by Phenom II X6 beating BD is basically every single scenario. And it's even made look worse when BD is actually compared to an i3, which is almost the end of the Intel barrel. But then again, it was that other conflictuous user who brought up i3-BD to the table, and I certainly am away from that.
Now, multithreading is a scenario where BD does outperform i3 CPUs, which is more than obvious, contrary to the singlethreaded performance that's on the opposite end.
And it's already a well known fact that AMD (after finally putting down the cards) has went the budget route, which has given Intel even more leeway to practice the abominable prices we currently see, especially on Sandy Bridge and its Extreme variant. Intel has (nearly) nothing on AMD when it comes to HTPCs, but what the IT crowd really needs is an i7 killer from AMD, which is just not bound to happen on the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, I would very much like to know why exactly BD can't beat the previous flagship. Now that I find a very worrying situation.
Last edited by tribaljet; 21-02-2012 at 10:32 AM.
Has anyone bought a Bulldozer/FX chip at all? Just wondering.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
